Catchwords

5893 legal topics across 3997 cases

Conclusion 27 Introduction 25 ABSTRACT 16 Abstract 14 KEYWORDS 14 Keywords 13 Post Winding Up – Application by Liquidator to compel Submission for Statement of Affairs of former director of the company– Submission for Statement of Affairs by former Director of Company before liquidation of company – Whether a former director can be compelled to submit a Statement of Affairs – Whether the liquidators’ request and application were procedurally proper – Whether the former director status as a nominee director or his claimed lack of information relieves him of the obligation - Inherent Jurisdiction of Court - Section 461 Companies Act – Section 484 Companies Act 2016 – Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012 – Form 17 of Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 12 Seksyen 26A Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 (ATIPSOM) – kes-kes diremitkan untuk pembelaan dipanggil setelah Mahkamah Rayuan mendapati satu kes prima facie telah berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan di akhir kes pendakwaan - samada keterangan tertuduh-tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munsabah dalam kes pendakwaan – sama ada sebarang ketinggalan dalam memproses masuk migran-migran hanya satu ketinggalan yang bersifat tatatertib dan langsung tidak menunjukkan penglibatan dalam kegiatan penyeludupan migran – sama ada penggunaan ayat-ayat yang sama dalam deposisi migran-migran yang berlainan adalah hasil “copy and paste” dari satu deposisi ke deposisi yang lain dan menimbulkan keraguan samada deposisi-deposisi tersebut sememangnya adalah versi migran-migran tersebut - sama ada keutamaan diberikan kepada pemakaian s.18 SOSMA berbanding s.34 ATIPSOM bagi kesalahan di bawah BAB IIIA ATIPSOM 9 INSURANCE: Third party risks insurance policy - Transfer of interest - Failure to register change of ownership of motor vehicle under section 13(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 – Effect of. 8 INSURANCE: Third party claim– Whether registration imposes liability on insurer notwithstanding insured ceased to have insurable interest in the motor vehicle at the time of accident. 8 INSURANCE: Statutory presumption of liability under section 109(2) of the Road Transport Act 1987. 8 INSURANCE: Third party rights against insurer – Application for declaration pursuant to section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 – Service of cause papers to third party – Non-compliance with the proviso to section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 – Effect of. 8 INSURANCE: Statutory protection to road accident victims – Sections 90, 91, 94 95 to 107 of the Road Transport Act 1987. 8 INSURANCE: Third party rights against insurer – Claim under insurance policy –Statutory obligation of insurer to pay judgment sum obtained by third party under section 96(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987. 8 INSURANCE: Declaratory order under section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987- Whether suitable to determine liability in negligence arising out of use of motor vehicle. 8 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Investigation conducted by Malaysia Competition Commission regarding complaints against company for bid rigging –Proposed decision issued – Proposed decision challenged for invalid investigation – When challenge available – Procedural impropriety – Sections 14, 15, 18, 36, and 40 of the Competition Act 2010 8 WTK REALTY SDN. BHD. … APPELLANT (COMPANY NO. 74536-H) 6 AND 6 1. KATHRYN MA WAI FONG 2. SOUTHWIND PLANTATION SDN. BHD. … RESPONDENTS 6 whether there has been a contravention of s 132D(1) of CA, and the issuances of the impugned shares in the three companies are null and void - whether the court ought to validate the issuance and allotment of the impugned shares to WKN under s 63 and/or s 355 of CA - the High Court and Court of Appeal had erred in their application of the Duomatic principle - The proper approach would have been the application of the specific statutory provision in the Companies Act 1965 that deals with validation by the courts, i.e. s 63 and/or 355 CA. 6 HDA 1976 – developer obligations, good workmanship, quality materials, luxury housing standards; HDLR 1989 Reg 11(1B) – SPA, DLP, contracting out limits; SPA – breach, workmanship, materials, implied terms; Latent vs Patent Defects – DLP scope, recoverability; DRFs & FFs – evidentiary weight, forgery, burden of proof; Contractual Interpretation – business common sense, implied terms; Causation – ‘but for’ test, multiple causes, apportionment; Expert Evidence – architects, quantity surveyors, construction defects; Quantum of Damages – rectification costs, s.74 Contracts Act; Cross-Appeals – Rule 8(1) RCA, procedural propriety; Fresh Evidence – s.69 CJA, Rule 7(3A) RCA, Ladd v Marshall; Consumer Protection – statutory safeguards, HDA social legislation; Housing Disputes – remedies, limits on developer defences; Forgery & Evidence – civil proof, oral vs expert; Statutory Protection – contracting out limits, homebuyer protection. 6 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB) dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama - Isu - Isu Di Peringkat Rayuan: (i) sama ada terdapat ketiadaan pengetahuan tertuduh-tertuduh terhadap dadah yang dijumpai - (ii) sama ada terdapat ketiadaan pengetahuan tertuduh-tertuduh tentang sifat sebenar dadah yang dibawa - (iii) sama ada wujud pembelaan pembawa tidak bersalah (“innocent carrier") - (iv) sama ada wujud ugutan (duress) - (v) sama ada Notis Alcontara telah diberikan dengan sempurna - (vi) sama ada pertimbangan sewajarnya telah diberikan terhadap keterangan SD9 - anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 94 Kanun Keseksaan - Act to which a person is compelled by threats - ugutan hendaklah bersifat imminent, persistent and extreme at the time of the commission of the offence - wilful blindness - versi pembelaan keenam-enam tertuduh adalah tidak kredibel, pemikiran terkemudian, rekaan dan penafian kosong semata-mata - keterangan SD9 nyata tidak konsisten dengan keterangan tertuduh-tertuduh - pembelaan bersifat simple denial - Sabitan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 selamat untuk dikekalkan - Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 (Akta 846) pada 4 Julai 2023 - hukuman pemenjaraan selama tiga puluh (30) tahun dari tarikh tangkap (11 Ogos 2018) dan 15 kali sebatan dikekalkan 6 On 8.11.2024, the Assistant Director of Manpower allowed all the Respondents’ claim for wages. Issue was whether the Respondents were entitled to their salary upon their arrival in the country or only as and when they were employed by third parties. Appellant argued that they were entitled to deduct the Respondents' salary for advances and poor performance. 6 Undang-undang jenayah-dadah berbahaya-seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952- sama ada elemen pemilikan dan pengedaran secara langsung berjaya dibuktikan-sama ada kegagalan memberikan kata-kata amaran sebelum acupakai dilaksanakan menjejaskan hak tertuduh-sama ada pembelaan "innocent carrier" relevan-sama ada kata-kata amaran telah diberikan secara efektif dan berkesan-sama ada rampasan telefon bimbit yang tidak dibuat semasa serbuan dan tidak ada borang geledah dan tandatangan tertuduh adalah fatal-sama ada pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie-tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri 6 There were nine charges preferred against the accused in this case. Five were for trafficking drugs under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA/the Act), three for possession of drugs under section 12 of the same Act and one charge under section 12(2) read together with section 39A(2) of the same. 6 Seksyen 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Kesalahan memberi atau menerima suapan oleh ejen - Seksyen 19 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Penerima atau pemberi suapan melakukan suatu kesalahan tanpa mengambil kira maksud tidak dilaksanakan atau perkara tidak berkaitan dengan hal ehwal atau perniagaan principal - Seksyen 24(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Penalti bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 dan 23 - Seksyen 50 (1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Anggapan dalam kesalahan tertentu - Tafsiran seksyen 3 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan 2001 mengenai makna "aktiviti haram" - Seksyen 4 (1)(b) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan 2001 - Kesalahan pengubahan wang haram - Seksyen 70 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan 2001 - Standard pembuktian - Pembelaan “innocent explanation” - Mengakas anggapan di bawah seskyen 50(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Responden telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap keterangan kes pendakwaan - Inferens di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai terhadap pendakwaan - Tiada pertimbangan semula “revisit” - Syak wasangka “suspicion” tidak boleh mengambil tempat pembuktian melampaui keraguan munasabah - Rayuan Pendakwaraya ditolak - Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi mengesahkan Perintah Mahkamah Sesyen membebaskan dan melepaskan Responden di akhir kes pembelaan di atas kesemua pertuduhan yang dikenakan terhadap beliau dikekalkan. 6 Rayuan oleh lima perayu terhadap tuduhan pindaan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan KK dibaca bersama seksyen 34 KK kerana melakukan kesalahan bunuh. 5 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Pertama) - seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Kedua) - Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1962 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 30(5) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Ketiga) - Timbalan Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan Pertuduhan Pertama (Pindaan) untuk Pertuduhan Pertama dibawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kedua-dua perayu menarik balik rayuan terhadap pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga – Mahkamah mempertimbangkan mitigasi peringanan hukuman oleh kedua-dua perayu serta faktor pemberatan seperti kepentingan awam, keseriusan kesalahan dan trend hukuman - Rayuan perayu-perayu bagi pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga dibatalkan - Rayuan perayu-perayu bagi pertuduhan pertama dibenarkan - Perayu-perayu didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kedua-dua perayu dikenakan hukuman pemenjaraan selama sembilan (9) tahun berkuatkuasa dari tarikh tangkap (7 Oktober 2020) dan sepuluh (10) kali sebatan. 5 allegations of undue preference, premised on voluntary settlements said to have been made without valuable consideration and not in good faith - fraudulent preference - application for a validation order in respect of a payment rendered void as the payment was made after the presentation of the winding-up petition. - (i) the distinct statutory requirements governing undue preference as opposed to fraudulent preference; (ii) whether proof of a dominant intention to prefer remains a necessary element for fraudulent preference; (iii) the scope of the recognised exceptions where payments are made under genuine commercial pressure to avert the imminent collapse of the company; (iv) the scope of the directors’ duties and (iv) the circumstances in which the court may properly grant validation of payments otherwise void against the liquidator. - Companies Act 1965 (“CA 1965”) - Insolvency Act 1967 (“IA 1967”). 5 Criminal Procedure – Sentence – Appeal against sentence – Charges under s 14(a) and (d) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 – whether sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed had crushing effect on accused – Whether sentence proportional to offence – Not manifestly excessive – Whether offences committed separate and distinct – Whether one transaction rule applicable – Whether sentences should be made to run concurrently 5 Appeal against conviction and sentence – Section 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Section 9(1) of the Poison Act 1952 – Whether the elements of possession and knowledge was proven – Whether preparatory acts amount to trafficking - Whether the presumption of adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 can only be drawn if there has been withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence - Whether failure to cross-examine the accused persons was fatal to the prosecution’s case - Whether High Court Judge had considered and evaluated the defence in its entirety 5 Brief facts 5 The central issue in these 4 appeals concerns the interpretation and understanding of the Attorney General’s consent obtained under Section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 [Act 359]. 4 Of the four appeals, three appeals arose from the judicial review proceedings [JR proceedings] while the fourth appeal arose from proceedings related to Originating Summons No: 24NCVC-1128-12/2014 [OS 1128]. We heard all four appeals together. After full consideration of the submissions, reasonings of the Courts below and the records of appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeals relating to the JR proceedings and dismissed the appeal relating to OS 1128. 4 Duty of appellate court on facts finding by the trial judge - differences of the approach of the high court and the court of appeal on the assessment of evidence - the plainly wrong test - recantation of evidence - law and procedure on recantation - reliability and credibility of expert witness and interested witness. 4 - 4 The Core Issues 4 Undang-undang Jenayah 4 Seksyen 39B ADB 1952 bersama-sama Seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952-dadah dijumpai di dalam rumah dan kenderaan-keputusan di akhir peringkat pembelaan-tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah-isu berkenaan lokasi dadah 4 Undang-undang jenayah: tertuduh-tertuduh dituduh mengedar dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahay 1952-sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie - pembelaan tertuduh dadah dimiliki oleh individu yang ditahan di bawah Akta Langkah-langkah Pencegahan Khas (LLPK) 1985 berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasah - sama ada kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil individu yang ditahan di bawah LLPK menyebabkan peruntukan seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai terhadap pihak pendakwaan-tertuduh-tertuduh disabitkan dengan pertuduhan dan dijatuhi hukuman penjara seumur hidup- tidak ada hukuman sebatan diperintahkan atas faktor undang-undang 4 Dangerous drugs – trafficking – doubt as to identity of impugned articles seized and sent to chemist - reduction in gross weight of the impugned drugs between the range of 124.62 grams to 761.4 grams – increment in gross weight between 99.05 grams to 1,778 grams - no explanation for the weight discrepancies were offered by the prosecution - investigating officer offered an assumption of a possibility that the weighing scale provided by the police department was uncalibrated - break in the chain of evidence - benefit of the doubt be given to the accused 4 Permohonan jenayah - untuk pertuduhan diketepikan disebabkan tiada perintah dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah bagi perbicaraan dijalankan secara bersama dengan tertuduh lain di bawah s. 170 Kanun Acara Jenayah dan butiran dalam pertuduhan tersebut adalah tidak jelas dan memprejudis Pemohon 4 Prosedur jenayah – perbicaraan bersama - s. 170 KAJ memberi kuasa kepada mahkamah untuk membicarakan seseorang yang dituduh sama ada secara bersama atau berasingan - tidak menetapkan mana-mana pihak sama ada pendakwaan atau tertuduh untuk membuat permohonan secara rasmi bagi membolehkan seseorang tertuduh dibicarakan secara bersama dengan tertuduh yang lain - kuasa diberikan sepenuhnya kepada mahkamah mengikut budibicara mutlaknya berdasarkan kepada fakta kes untuk menetapkan seseorang tertuduh dibicarakan secara bersama atau berasingan - selama mana proses penetapan perbicaraan Pemohon secara bersama serta penetapan tarikh bicara berkenaan tidak mendatangkan prejudis atau ketakadilan terhadap Pemohon, maka ketiadaan perintah mahkamah pada 20.2.2025 dalam perkara ini tidak menjejaskan prosiding berkenaan 4 The Prosecution filed appeals against the discharge and acquittal, challenging the Sessions Court’s finding that no prima facie case existed under Section 16(a)(B) of the MACC Act 2009 and Section 165 of the Penal Code against R1 and R2 respectively. Upon evaluating all record of proceedings, notes of evidence and the submissions of all parties, it was held that the Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against either Respondent. The identification evidence is unreliable, the alleged receipt of monies is not shown to be corruptly intended or linked to any official act and the evidential gaps and inconsistencies are substantial. Accordingly, the appeal by the Prosecution is dismissed and the Sessions Court’s order discharging and acquitting both Respondents is affirmed. 4 Exercise of discretion by trial cart - whether sentence to run concurrently or consecutively - S.292 CPC 4 CRIMINAL LAW – Dangerous Drugs – Trafficking charge – Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether possession proven - Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs – Police raid on a homestay - All three accused found on the first floor - In two separate rooms – No drugs found in the rooms on the first floor - Drugs found in a room on the ground floor - Whether ground floor room was locked during the raid – Contradiction between the testimony of the Raiding Officer and the homestay manager on whether it was locked – No entrance keys to the homestay and the ground floor room found on the accused persons – Whether the accused persons had access to the ground floor room - Whether a third party had instead locked the ground floor room and accused persons inside the homestay – Whether a third party had access to the ground floor room – Accused persons looking surprise and worried during the raid – Whether this reaction consistent with someone who had hid the entrance keys to the homestay and the ground floor room - Whether the purported navigation of the accused persons to the ground floor room admissible – Under section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 – Whether the purported admission by the accused persons that they are keeping “barang salah” admissible – Whether caution administered pursuant to section 37B DDA 1952 - Identification of the 1st accused by the homestay manager via photograph – Whether identification parade ought to have been held based on the facts herein - Weight to be attached to such identification by photograph - No DNA of the accused persons found on the drug case exhibits and the non-drug case exhibits - Whether the fact that no response from the accused persons when the police called them from outside the homestay - And them looking scared and worried sufficient to infer knowledge - Whether DNA of the 3rd accused found on the water bottle on the ground floor room sufficient to infer knowledge - Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 4 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Sentencing – Dangerous Drugs – Whether sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed rather than death penalty – Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act, 2023, 554. 4 Seksyen 26B(d) Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Anti Penyeludupan Migran 2007 (Akta 670) dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - seksyen 170 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593] - Akta Perlindungan Saksi 2009 [Akta 696] - Seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) [Akta 747] - Evidence of witness given in a special manner - subseksyen 20 Akta Perlindungan Saksi 2009 - Identity of participant not to be disclosed in court proceedings - Seksyen 3 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 mendefinasikan “decision” - Seksyen 50(1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 - Jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal appeals - perintah yang diberikan ketika perbicaraan masih berjalan terjumlah kepada satu keputusan yang memuktamadkan hak pihak-pihak - ianya boleh dirayu kerana keputusan tersebut tidak meninggalkan apa-apa persoalan terbuka untuk penentuan kehakiman - seksyen 14(2A) Akta SOSMA) - seksyen 15(1) dan seksyen 20 Akta Perlindungan Saksi 2009 - seksyen 3 Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) mendefinisikan “saksi yang dilindungi” - Program Perlindungan Saksi - saksi dilindungi oleh undang-undang - keterangan yang diberikan berjalan dengan lancar tanpa sebarang kebimbangan ancaman atau bahaya terhadap nyawa dan keselamatan 4 “Sek 39B Akta 234 – dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pembelaan – sama ada PR telah membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah” 4 Joint Management Body- Whether it can impose charges in “square feet” instead of “share unit.” Whether it is reasonable in not calculating in “unit share” earlier. Whether rates must be introduced at the annual budget. Whether interest can be charged on late payment. Whether air con charges can be charged. Fiscal Team- whether it can be depended upon. 4 The Court of Appeal held that the loan agreement between Ace Credit (M) Sdn Bhd and Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd was void under section 10P of the Moneylenders Act 1951 for non-compliance with the prescribed form and excessive interest. All related security documents and caveats were likewise invalid. However, applying section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, the Court ordered restitution of monies advanced, as the transaction was void but not substantively illegal. The High Court’s decision was affirmed with slight variation and no order as to costs. 4 Plaintiffs (insured) seek a declaration that the defendant (insurer) is liable to indemnity them under fire policy and consequential loss policy – Defendant counterclaim for a declaration that the policies are forfeited and for refund of the interim payments – Whether the defendant’s repudiation of the policies is valid – Whether the plaintiffs have submitted exaggerated of fraudulent claims – Whether the plaintiffs have failed to disclose material facts and provide relevant documents in relation to their claims – Whether the plaintiffs are in breach of the terms and conditions of the policies. 4 discovery application - Order 24 r 3 & 7 ROC 2012 - requirements of the Order 24 r 3 (4) and Order 24 r 7 (3) - Whether the discovery application is meritorious - fishing expedition - Whether discovery is prohibited by statutory provisions on secrecy - section 43 of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (“the SICDA 1991”) - Banks’ Duty of Care to Non-Customers - The Financial Services Act 2013 4 section 304(a) of the Penal Code read together with section 34 of same Act - culpable homicide not amounting to murder – the deceased was found - arrival of investigating officer and forensics - post-mortem - the arrests - identification of the deceased - public interest - sentence imposed is in tandem with the current trend of sentencing 4 (2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a). 4 Three Originating Summons to be heard together which one is to set aside an Adjudication Decision and another is to invoke section 28 of the CIPAA Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 20.11.2024. And another is an application to stay that Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of a civil suit filed in Kuala Lumpur High Court. 4 1. The Plaintiffs have applied to the Court by this Originating Summons (“OS”) for a Declaration that the land tenure of 99 years issued by the Land Office to be reverted to a tenure in perpetuity as it was originally was. 4 4. The Plaintiffs allege that the conversion of the tenure from perpetuity to a 99 years lease is unlawful and unconstitutional. By this OS the Plaintiff applies for a Declaration from the Court to declare that the land is held in perpetuity instead of 99 years. 4 Whether a winding up of a company after a liability Judgment in its favour but before assessment of quantum would limit the quantum to until the winding up date - whether the Issue of winding up should be raised in the Liability Appeal and not in the Quantum Appeal on ground of res judicata - whether an extension of the agreement that happened after the Liability Judgment but before assessment of Quantum may be considered - whether the court in interpreting a Judgment may take the background facts of the case, the pleadings and relief claimed and the grounds of Judgment as well as the changed circumstances into consideration without being inconsistent with the Liability Judgment. 3 Jenayah — Hukuman mati — Semakan hukuman mati — semakan hukuman mati selepas diberi pengampunan oleh Lembaga Pengampunan Perlembagaan Persekutuan — Perkara 42 — Pengampunan Diraja — Kuasa Lembaga Pengampunan — Keputusan pengampunan — Sama ada boleh dicabar melalui semakan kehakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan — Bidang kuasa — Bidang kuasa penyemakan sementara — Semakan hukuman mati — s. 2 Akta Semakan Hukuman Mati dan Penjara Sepanjang Hayat (Bidang Kuasa Sementara Mahkamah Persekutuan) 2023 (Akta 847) Amalan dan Prosedur — Kaedah 137 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Persekutuan 1995 — Permohonan semakan hukuman — Sama ada terpakai selepas pengampunan Diraja Lembaga Pengampunan — Kuasa perlembagaan — Keputusan mengubah hukuman mati — Kesan terhadap bidang kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan Isu Undang-Undang — Sama ada seseorang yang telah dihukum mati dan kemudiannya memperoleh pengampunan di bawah Perkara 42 Perlembagaan Persekutuan berhak/boleh mengemukakan permohonan semakan semula hukuman mati — Sama ada Mahkamah Persekutuan mempunyai bidang kuasa penyemakan sementara di bawah s. 2 Akta 847 selepas hukuman diubah oleh Lembaga Pengampunan 3 Appeal against Assessment - Quantum of loss and damage – loss of goods in production and the profits – loss of production and the profits – replacement cost of machinery and other equipment physically damaged and the repair cost – issue of discretion to award pre-judgment interest from the date of incident of the date of filing claim – issue of awarding damages to documents that were marked as “ID”. 3 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – pra-syarat di bawah Seksyen 32(1)(i) Akta Keterangan 1950 – isu ketiadaan siasatan forensik berkenaan penimbulan cap jari dan DNA pada dadah - Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - isu kegagalan memanggil Sathianathan a/l Marimuthu dan pemakaian anggapan menurut Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - anggapan di bawah Seksyen 37(d) ADB di atas imbangan kebarangkalian gagal dipatahkan - pembelaan Perayu bersifat penafian semata-mata 3 Permohonan jaminan Mahkamah sementara menunggu perbicaraan kes – Seksyen 388 dan Seksyen 389 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 574] – Seksyen 13(2) Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 [Akta 747] – Seksyen 130V Kanun Keseksaan [Akta 574] – lima pengecualian untuk jaminan menurut Seksyen 13(2) Akta 747 – sama ada Pemohon-pemohon merupakan seorang yang sakit atau uzur – penyakit atau keuzuran yang boleh memudaratkan atau mengancam nyawa 3 seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 - seksyen 16 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 - seksyen 26 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - seksyen 27 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 3 Appeal - interpretation of Clause 35A and Section 10 Schedule A - calculation of LAD - when the 42 month period begin for computation of the LAD - interpretation of contract - Court of Appeal already decided in similar cases - stare decisis - Appeal dismissed 3 Land Acquisition Act 1960. Whether a new and different Private Valuation Report can be adduce at the land reference proceedings at the High Court. 3 The Core Issue 3 The Adjudicator had failed to act impartially and independently and that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction respectively in arriving to his conclusion of the Adjudication Proceedings. 3 Kemas Maju has failed to establish Section 15(b) of the CIPAA 2012. 3 No ambiguity in relation to the due dates of the payments claimed by Master Craft. Kemas Maju did not deny that at the time the Payment Claim was issued, all the payment invoices were already due for payment. 3 The Prevailing Issue 3 Undang-undang Jenayah. 3 Prosedur Jenayah-Penghukuman-Penangguhan pelaksaan hukuman-Pemohon disabitkan bersalah atas pertuduhan di bawah pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 307 kanun Keseksaan dan seksyen 44(1_ Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 yang mana masing-masing dikenakan hukuman penjara dan denda - sama ada Pemohon menunjukkan keadaan khas untuk membenarkan permohonan pemohon-alasan permohonan kerana dikehendaki hadir secara fizikal di Jabatan Imigresen untuk permohonan lanjutan Pas Lawatan Sosial bekas isteri Pemohon dan Pemohon sebagai penjamin/penaja bekas isteri Pemohon 3 Prosedur jenayah-sama ada laporan polis dibuat oleh tertuduh pertama selepas dokumen diterima menurut seksyen 51A Kanun Prosedur Jenayah diterima sebagai pembelaan tertuduh pertama - sama ada laporan polis tertuduh pertama merupakan penafian semata-mata. 3 Criminal appeal - whether the failure of the trial court to explain to the Appellant that he has the right to have an advocate to defend his case would render the Appellant’s plea of guilty invalid - whether the trial court has the responsibility to explain to an accused on his right to have an advocate to defend him before his plea is admitted. 3 Pertuduhan - s. 130V(1) Kanun Kesiksaan - dengan menganggotai kumpulan jenayah terancang sahaja seseorang itu telah melakukan kesalahan - memadai dengan menyatakan nama kesalahan berkenaan sahaja beserta tarikh, tempat, kesalahan dan seksyen dalam pertuduhan - kekurangan butiran dalam sesuatu pertuduhan bukanlah sesuatu yang material dan menjejaskan pertuduhan tersebut melainkan ia mengelirukan tertuduh 3 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - OKT) hanya berseorangan di atas motosikal dalam keadaan enjin motosikal dimatikanmemakai beg galas warna biru gelap di belakangnya mengandungi ketulan mampat daun kering dibaluti plastic lutsinar disyaki dadah jenis ganja, biji pil-pil warna merah disyaki dadah jenis pil yaba dan plastic lutsinar berisi bahan kristal disyaki dadah jenis syabu - Samada OKT mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah tersebut - Samada pemilikan dibuktikan secara keterangan terus atau anggapan di bawah Seksyen 37d ADB - Samada OKT ditangkap ditempat seperti dalam pertuduhan atau terdapat kesalahan pada tempat - Samada OKT berjaya menunjukkan keraguan yang munasabah 3 Semakan kehakiman - Keputusan Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri membatalkan kelulusan mengeluarkan saki baki kayu balak - Permohonan semakan kehakiman ditolak. 3 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B, seksyen 12(2), seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan Akta Racun 1952 - Di akhir kes pendakwaan OKT 1 dipanggil membela diri untuk pertuduhan seksyen 12(2) - Kedua-dua OKT dibebas dan dilepaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - Pendakwa Raya gagal menunjukkan kes prima facie. 3 Section 96(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 - lnsurer's Statutory Liability - lnterlocutory Judgment in Default was entered by the Sessions Court against the Defendants and the Plaintiffs proceeded with the assessment of damages - Plaintiffs filed Revovery Action against the P&O Insurance - The P&O lnsurance filed an application to intervene and to set aside the order of the Sessions Court - Whether P&O lnsurance should be allowed to intervene - Whether the Sessions Court is functus officio - Whether the P&O lnsurance abuse the court process. 3 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - pembuktian milikan, jagaan dan kawalan serta pengetahuan terhadap dadah - Perayu mempunyai kuasa untuk mengendalikan dadah sebagai pemilik, dengan mengecualikan orang lain - dadah dijumpai hasil daripada tunjuk arah oleh Perayu - Kunci premis tempat dadah ditemui berada di dalam poket seluar Perayu - sama ada rantaian keterangan telah terputus - dadah lewat dihantar oleh pihak polis ke Jabatan Kimia untuk dianalisa - anggapan statutori di bawah Seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952 - anggapan bertentangan di bawah Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk memanggil suspek-suspek yang direman bersama Perayu sebagai saksi - kelakuan Perayu menunjukkan Perayu mempunyai perhubungan langsung (“clear nexus”) dengan dadah - Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - fakta yang membawa kepada penemuan dadah (leading to discovery) - sabitan ke atas Perayu adalah selamat walaupun dengan ketiadaan keterangan forensik 3 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama - seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama - bawah seksyen 9(1) Akta Racun 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 32(3) Akta yang sama - seksyen 30(3) Akta yang sama Akta Racun 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 32(5) Akta yang sama - Kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan - keterangan melimpah ruah - akses tempat kejadian - penemuan DNA di tempat kejadian - penafian (bare denial) - pemikiran terkemudian (afterthought) - tingkah laku selepas tangkapan - seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - seksyen 9 Akta Keterangan 1950 - - inferens menentang - seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - anggapan mengedar dadah berbahaya - seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 3 1. The Plaintiff’s application for discovery (Enclosure 8) is allowed in part, limited to documents relating to compensation, commission, policy portfolio, investigation and LIAM referral. 3 2. The Defendant’s application to strike out portions of the Statement of Claim (Enclosure 10) is dismissed as the issues raised warrant a full trial. 3 3. The Defendant’s application for consolidation and transfer (Enclosure 12) is allowed; this suit is transferred to the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) and consolidated with Suit No. WA-22NCC-858-12/2024 for joint case management and trial. 3 4. Costs in the cause. 3 Bicara penuh - Tiga (3) pertuduhan didaftarkan terhadap Tertuduh Pertama (OKT1) dan Tertuduh kedua (OKT2) - Bagi nombor kes JA-45A-28-03/2022, OKT1 dan OKT2 telah dituduh bersama-sama mengedar dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB) dan bagi nombor kes JA-45A-86-04/2022, OKT1 dan OKT2 dituduh bersama-sama memiliki dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta yang sama. Manakala bagi no kes JA-45A-29-03/2022, OKT2 dituduh berasingan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB. Perbicaraan dijalankan bersama-sama bagi ketiga-tiga nombor yang didaftarkan. 3 Prima Facie - Kedua-dua OKT diarahkan untuk bela diri - Keterangan bersumpah kedua-dua OKT - Pembelaan penafian dan afterthoughts - Tidak membangkitkan keraguan dalam kes Pendakwaan 3 Undang-Undang - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Methamphetamine - Anggapan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 37(da) 3 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Keterangan ahli kimia - Seksyen 399 KTJ 3 Undang-Undang - Kedua-dua OKT disabitkan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan seumur hidup dan 12 sebatan - Hukuman berjalan serentak 3 Appeal to Judge in Chambers – Against the decision of Senior Assistant Registrar - Dismissing an oral application by Judgement Creditor – Made before commencement of the Judgement Debtor Summons hearing – Seeking for the Judgement Debtor to produce - Previous years bank accounts – Judgement Debtor a body corporate – Whether Judgement Creditor complied with requirements of Order 48 Rule 1 (2) ROC 2012 – By obtaining leave to issue Judgement Debtor Summons against an officer – And leave for the officer to produce relevant documents – Whether the request by the Judgement Creditor amounts to asset tracing exercise – Or amounts to a historical assessment of monies spent – Whether the inherent flexibility of Order 48 ought to be constrained? – Whether a benevolent interpretation should be accorded to Order 48 and Section 4 Debtors Act, 1957 - Whether the JDS ought to have been commenced in the Court of first instance – Section 2 Debtors Act, 1957 defines Courts as the Courts in which the original proceedings were commenced. 3 Criminal Appeal - Against conviction - Decision from the Sessions Court – Principles of appellate intervention - Charge under s. 304 (a) PC – Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case – Whether the sole eyewitness is credible – Whether there exists doubt regarding how the victim suffered the injury – Shoddy investigations – Failure to prepare a search list for the weapons – Failure to investigate if the victim was involved in a road accident instead – Non-existence of the accused or the victim’s DNAA on the weapons weakens the prosecution’s case – Failure to investigate two other persons who also hit the victim – Failure to establish ownership of the two motorcars – Prosecution’s case is not weaken in light of the direct evidence from sole eyewitness on the incident - Whether Court failed to consider the defence – Prosecution’s appeal - Against decision of the Court in finding the accused guilty of a lesser charge under s 304 (b) PC – Whether Court erred in finding the accused guilty of a lesser charge under s 304 (b) PC upon calling the accused to enter defence on the original charge under s 304 (a) - Appeal by the accused and prosecution against sentence - Whether sentence is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate. 3 pertuduhan pilihan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A (2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Mitigasi perayu-perayu - kepentingan awam harus diberikan keutamaan melebihi kepentingan individu - kesalahan memiliki dadah adalah serius - hukuman pemenjaraan selama sembilan (9) tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan sepuluh kali (10) sebatan 3 OKT dituduh dengan dua pertuduhan memiliki dadah berbahaya dan satu pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya. Setelah perbicaraan penuh, Mahk telah mensabitkan OKT atas ketiga-tiga pertuduhan terhadapnya. Isu yang ditimbulkan adalah bahawa OKT tiada milikan atas dadah berbahaya tersebut dan dadah ditinggalkan oleh rakan OKT yang sebelum itu telah meminjam kereta OKT. Kegagalan mematuhi Alcontara Notice, pembelaan adalah bersifat penafian dan rekaan (afterthought) semata-mata. 3 OKT dipertuduhkan dengan 4 pertuduhan memiliki dan 2 pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya, kesemuanya 6 pertuduhan yang melibatkan 4 jenis dadah berbahaya yang berbeza. Setelah ditawarkan dengan pertuduhan pilihan di bawah pemilikan bagi 2 pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya, OKT telah mengaku salah terhadap 2 pertuduhan pilihan tersebut dan 4 lagi pertuduhan pemilikan yang lain. Rayuan atas sabitan dan hukuman. Dalam mempertimbangkan hukuman, faktor kepentingan awam menjadi faktor utama. Turut dipertimbangkan bahawa OKT pesalah kali pertama dan telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan pilihan dan pertuduhan-pertuduhan yang lain, sebaik tawaran dikemukakan oleh TPR. Namun begitu, faktor kepentingan awam, kesalahan dadah merupakan kesalahan serius, fakta kes, berat dan jenis dadah terlibat telah turut dipertimbangkan dalam menentukan hukuman yang sesuai dan munasabah terhadap OKT. Tiada hukuman sebatan diperintahkan kerana OKT tlh berumur 55 tahun pada tarikh hukuman dijatuhkan, selaras dengan sek 289(c) KTJ. 3 Company law – Fortuna injunction – Application to restrain presentation of winding-up petition – Quia timet relief – Section 466 Companies Act 2016 – Statutory demand – Unpaid judgment debt – Sessions Court judgment affirmed on appeal – Final and enforceable judgment – Whether winding-up petition an abuse of process – Principles governing Fortuna injunction– Bona fide dispute test – Whether judgment debt can constitute disputed debt – Court will not go behind regular judgment – Payment by cheque – Conditional payment – Dishonoured cheque – Revival of underlying debt – Bills of Exchange Act 1949 s 47 – Statutory threshold for winding-up petition – Allocation of payments by creditor – Validity of statutory notice – Indemnity costs agreed and paid – Estoppel – No genuine dispute on substantial grounds – Winding-up as legitimate enforcement mechanism – Application for injunction dismissed – Costs on indemnity basis. 3 Whether Native Customary Right proven by the plaintiff - Whether map of plaintiff should be given weight - Whether inadequate reasons given by High Court warrants interference - Whether alienation extinguishes NCR and bars rectification of title 3 Dalam kes-kes jenayah seksual jika Tertuduh menghadapi lebih dari satu pertuduhan, mahkamah kebiasaannya akan memerintahkan hukuman penjara berjalan berasingan, Ezra Elmi lwn PP [2022] CLJU 727, Davies Jonis v PP [2015] CLJU 1411. 3 Undang-Undang Jenayah – Rasuah – Seksyen 23(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 – “Menggunakan jawatan atau kedudukan untuk suapan” – Pegawai awam menyediakan borang perolehan dan mengemukakan tiga sebut harga – Sebut harga terendah konsisten daripada syarikat milik saudara terdekat – Sama ada tindakan tersebut terjumlah kepada “mengambil tindakan” atau “mencadangkan” dalam maksud seksyen – Anggapan di bawah s. 23(2) – Bilakah terpakai – Sama ada berjaya dipatahkan – Beban pembuktian ke atas pembelaan pada tahap imbangan kebarangkalian. 3 Prosedur Jenayah – Rayuan – Terhadap sabitan dan hukuman – Sama ada mahkamah bicara terkhilaf dalam memutuskan wujudnya kes prima facie – Sama ada pembelaan telah menimbulkan keraguan munasabah – Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan jelas berlebihan – Hukuman penjara serentak – Prinsip penghukuman bagi kesalahan rasuah – Pencegahan dan kepentingan awam. 3 Keterangan – Kredibiliti saksi – Percanggahan antara keterangan di mahkamah dengan pernyataan kepada penyiasat – Prosedur di bawah s. 145(1) Akta Keterangan 1950 – Budi bicara hakim bicara untuk menerima sebahagian dan menolak sebahagian keterangan saksi – Keengganan mahkamah rayuan untuk campur tangan dalam dapatan fakta berdasarkan kredibiliti. 3 Pegawai Awam – Konflik kepentingan – Kewajipan mengisytiharkan – Nepotisme dalam perolehan kerajaan – Penggunaan jawatan untuk memberi manfaat kepada ahli keluarga – Sama ada pembelaan “arahan atasan” atau “keperluan operasi mendesak” sah di sisi undang-undang – Keseriusan mengkhianati amanah awam. 3 Mandamus – whether the Court can compel the Government to transfer the subject land to Semantan Estate based on a 2009 High Court Declaration Order — whether s 29(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 (“GPA”) bars recovery orders against the Government – whether the High Court Declaration Order 2009 is amenable to a subsequent mandamus. Section 29(1)(b) GPA – whether it must be read in tandem with Article 13 of the Federal Constitution — whether the Court can order an assessment of adequate compensation under O 53 r 2(3) Rules of Court 2012 - whether alternatively s 69(4) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 may be invoked. Adequacy of compensation – whether the sum paid was adequate for the purposes of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution having regard to the sum paid by the Government pursuant to the Collector’s Award under the Land Acquisition Enactment — whether Semantan Estate had lost the opportunity to make a land reference — whether Semantan Estate may not seek the return of the subject land but must be confined to monetary relief. Assessment of compensation – whether compensation should be calculated at the current market value or at the market value on the date 3.12.1956 when the Government took possession of the subject land — interest at the rate of 6% per annum under the Land Acquisition Enactment on amount assessed after deducting sums already paid from 3.12.1956 to date of payment — Whether upon payment of the compensation sum as may be assessed the mesne profits will cease to be payable. Section 417 of the National Land Code (“NLC”) – whether the Court can order the transfer of the subject land to Semantan Estate on the basis of the High Court Declaration Order 2009 – whether the High Court Declaration Order 2009 had stopped short of ordering a transfer of the subject land to Semantan Estate — whether the order made for transfer of the subject land under s 417 of NLC should be set aside. 3 Minority oppression - Whether removal from management with shares locked in oppressive - Whether pending suit for misconduct against minority bars oppression action? - Whether sale of shares to new investor terminated quasi partnership on the facts? - Whether valuation expert should subject to cross examination whether original buyout order did not provide for it? 3 deemed retirement - retirement by rotation - re-election of the retiring directors - non-holding of AGM - whether a company director who is due to retire under the articles of association of the company in an impending general meeting of the shareholders can be deemed to have retired upon the completion of the period the meeting ought to have been convened if the meeting could not be held for some reason - deemed retirement approach is inconsistent with shareholder democracy - section 205, 208 & 340 of the Companies Act 2016 3 Appeal against conviction and sentence – Section 405 & Section 403 Penal Code – Section 4(1)(b) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 – Abetment – Criminal Breach of Trust – Dishonest misappropriation of property - Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in failing to decide that there was no offence as per the charges even if all the prosecution evidence was unrebutted or unexplained – Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred when his Lordship failed to assess the credibility of the main prosecution witnesses – Whether the Learned High Court Judge failed to take into consideration and/or appreciate the ingredients and requirements of s. 405 PC and consequently failed to conclude that the Appellant’s act did not amount to an offence under s. 405 of the PC read together with s. 109 of the PC – Whether the Learned High Court Judge erred in deciding that there was a prima facie case of the AMLA charges given that the AMLA charges were predicated on the s.403 charge – Failure to consider all the evidence which is the key aspects of s.182A (1) Criminal Procedure Court 3 REVENUE LAW: Income tax – Assessment – Appeal against deciding order – Petrol filling station – Canopy and halide lights – Whether entitled to capital expenditure allowance as “plant expenditure” – Meaning of “plant” – Tropiland principles – Schedule 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 3 ABSTRAK 3 Civil Procedure - Whether the Plaintiff has proven the claim for goods and services supplied to the Defendant - Whether the Defendants are liable for the guarantees - Whether the Defendants in counterclaim have conspired jointly to defraud the Plaintiff 3 Judgment after trial – Liability - Insurance claims by the insureds for loss and damage arising from a fire incident – Whether the insureds entitled to claims extended on indemnity basis - Whether the fire was accidental and deliberately caused – Whether the Plaintiff in breach of the Insurance Policy which restricted the storage and to exclude liability of the insurer – The National Fire Protection Association 921: Guides for Fire and Explosion Investigations – Examination of scientific component by the experts – Examination of “Multiple Seats of Fire” Theory – Whether there is full room involvement – Whether the low-level burnings may cause separate fires - Expert’s failure to support their narrative of incendiary fire ignited in the absence of evidence of any accelerant at the identified multiple seats of fire – The Court’s found that the fire was accidental and not deliberately caused – The assessment or measurements available for verification of the volume of oils is based very much on estimation and unsupported data. The Warranty has not thus not been breached by the Plaintiff. 3 19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 19) 3 (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that- 3 (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; 3 Whether Statement 1, particularly those in bold dated 20.2.2019 has been distributed and/ or caused to be distributed by Carol? - Whether it refers to Aida and if so, whether it is defamatory? - Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment? - Whether the Statement, particularly those in bold in the letter dated 14.4.2019 refers to Aida, Wai Ping, Shereen, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam as a whole and/ or individually and if so, whether it is defamatory? - Whether Carol can rely on the defence of justification, fair comment and/ or qualified privilege? - Whether Statement 8 dated 16.4.2019 refers to Carol and if so, whether it is defamatory? - Whether Chew can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment? - Whether it was published by Chew against Carol maliciously? - Whether Statement 9 dated 13.4.2019 was authored, written, published and/ or posted by Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew or Dato’ Ngiam? - Whether it refers to Carol and if so, whether it is defamatory? - Whether Shereen, Wai Ping, Aida, Chew and Dato’ Ngiam can rely on the defence of justification and/ or fair comment? - Whether it was published against Carol maliciously? 3 Constitutional Law: Citizenship – by operation of law – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – burden of proof – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – burden of proof 3 These three Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 20.5.2025 that Perusahaan Radzmin Sdn Bhd obtained against Exyte Malaysia Sdn Bhd under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012. Exyte is applying to set aside and to stay the Adjudication Decision while Perusahaan Radzmin is applying under section 28 of the Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision against Exyte. 3 This case concerns three Originating Summons arising from an adjudication decision under the CIPAA 2012. The legal issues were whether the adjudication decision should be set aside under s 15(b) and (d) for denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction; whether enforcement should be granted under s 28; and whether a stay should be ordered under s 16(1)(b) pending arbitration. The High Court dismissed the setting-aside and stay applications, holding the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction and observed natural justice, and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision. 3 Stay of adjudication decision – Section 16(1)(b) CIPAA – Stay pending arbitration – Whether the existence of parallel arbitration sufficient – Clear and unequivocal error – Threshold – Justice of the case – Balance between cashflow objective and parties’ substantive rights – Financial standing of successful party – Whether adjudication process rendered nugatory – 3 Section 28 CIPAA – Enforcement of adjudication decision as judgment of court – Prerequisites for enforcement – Adjudication decision not set aside or stayed – Court’s limited discretion – 3 Originating Summons. CIPAA. Stay of Adjudication Decision. Setting Aside Adjudication Decision. Interim Stay of Adjudication Decision. Enforce Adjudication Decision. 3 Three Originating Summons to be heard together in which, one is to set aside an Adjudication Decision and another is to invoke section 28 of the CIPAA Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 19.8.2024. And another is an application to stay that Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of a civil suit filed in Kuala Lumpur High Court. 3 Criminal Justice - offences of drug trafficking and drug possession - assortment of drugs and poison - four accused persons - two were acquitted at the close of prosecution case - defence called for two other accused persons - both testified under oath - successful in rebutting presumption of trafficking - found guilty and convicted for an offence of drug possession - charge for an offence of drug trafficking reduced to one of possession - sentenced according to law. 3 Administrative Law — Judicial review — Order of certiorari to quash the certificates and alternatively a declaration that Certificates of conversion of three children borne out of civil marriage, were null and void — Certificates of conversion showing that the Registrar of Muallaf (‘the registrar’) had registered children as Muslims — Non-compliance of requirements for conversion to the religion of Islam — Whether the High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to review the administrative actions of the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate acting as public authorities in exercising statutory powers vested by the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 — Whether a child of a marriage under a civil marriage who has not attained the age of eighteen years must comply with both sections 96(1) and 106(b) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 before the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate may register the conversion to Islam of that child — Whether the mother and the father (if both are still surviving) of a child of a civil marriage must consent before a certificate of conversion to Islam can be issued in respect of that child — Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 (‘the Perak Enactment’), ss 96 and 106;Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91], sections 23, 24 and 25 and the Schedule; Federal Constitution, arts 121 & 121(1A); Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164], Part VIII Protection of children; Rules of High Court 2012, Order 53 Family Law — Civil marriage — Husband converted to Islam on 11.3.2009 — They had three children — Husband obtained a custody order of the three children from the Shariah High Court — Youngest child was with the husband — Whether High Court is the Court that has jurisdiction and power to grant custody of children under civil marriage — High Court granted the wife custody of the three children — Whether a child of a civil marriage who has not attained the age of eighteen years must comply with both sections 96(1) and 106(b) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 before the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate may register the conversion to Islam of that child — Whether the mother and the father (if both are still surviving) of a child of a civil marriage must consent before a certificate of conversion to Islam can be issued in respect of that child — Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 (‘the Perak Enactment’), ss 96 and 106; Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164], Part VIII Protection of children 2 Application of Rosliza and Indira Gandhi - never was a muslim - no longer a muslim - assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case - jurisdiction of civil and syariah court - meaning of muslim in section 2 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 - applicable law - date of actual conversion or date of issuance of the certificate of conversion - conclusiveness of certificate of conversion - collateral attack of syariah court 2 There are three appeals before us, two by Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia [LLM] and the third is by MMC Tepat Teknik Sdn Bhd [MMC Tepat Teknik]. All three appeals arise out of the compulsory acquisition of lands belonging to MMC Tepat Teknik under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486]. After full consideration of the issues, we unanimously allowed the appeals by LLM and dismissed the appeal by MMC Tepat Teknik. 2 Breach of contract - Pre-incorporation contracts rule - Section 35 of the Companies Act 1965 - Estoppel - Intention to create legal relation - Letter of intent 2 whether the 1981 Agreement constituted a trust - no consideration - no equity to perfect an imperfect gift - the law of trusts cannot be invoked to effectuate an incomplete gift nor can equity assist a volunteer - limitation - doctrine of laches - whether the subsequent sale of the Pasla Holdings lands were invalid or sold below market value to Vision Wagon. 2 1. Enforcement of the Adjudication Decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) 2 2. Whether the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012? 2 3. Whether an adjudicator is prohibited from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract in allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party? 2 4. Whether the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction? 2 Civil procedure – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 67 – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, Rules 5(1), 5(3) and 5(4) – procedural law – striking out of notice of appeal – preliminary objection - filing of single notice of appeal for more than one decision – whether decisions were clearly and concisely identified 2 habeas corpus 2 The offence of murder under section 302 of the Penal code. 2 The deceased was child at the age of 2 years and 2 months 2 There were 29 external injuries on the deceased body and the cause of death was severe head injury due to blunt force trauma 2 The accused was the last person seen with the deceased while the deceased was still alive 2 Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution had established that the accused had the intention to inflict the injuries on the deceased. 2 Whether the injuries intentionally inflicted by the accused are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death which attracts the application of section 300(c) of the Penal Code 2 Whether the prosecution needs to establish pre-meditation and pre-existing malice by the accused before a murder offence can be established 2 Misfeasance – The learned JC find there is public misfeasance and awarded RM50,000.00 to the Plaintiff - Held, the Appellants in Appeal No. 71 did not commit misfeasance in public office, therefore award RM50,000.00 is set aside. 2 Negligence - Were the Defendants negligent in causing the death of the deceased – Held, there was a duty of care owed by the defendants to the deceased and that the defendants had breached that duty. 2 Breach of statutory duty – Whether the Defendants are liable for breach of statutory duty – Held, agree with the learned JC that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants had breached both their common law duty of care and the statutory duty imposed on them whilst the deceased was in Tapah Prison. 2 Reliefs - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to loss of dependency under section 7 Civil Law Act 1956 – Held, the figure of RM212.50 per month is reasonable for the dependency claim. 2 Civil procedure- Application to strike out counterclaim-Summary judgment previously allowed-Similarity of issues-Whether res judicata and issue estoppel applied 2 Assessment of damages-Particulars of special damages not pleaded-Whether legal fees are claimable-Whether general and exemplary damages are excessive-Pre-judgment interest 2 Section 302 of the Penal Code read together with section 34 of the same Code 2 Circumstantial evidence, the principle of "last seen together" 2 Unsworn statement 2 Common intention to commit criminal act that resulted in the commission of the offence of murder. 2 permohonan untuk membatalkan sitasi dibawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b), (c) dan (d) dan / atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 1 (2) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Undang-undang berkaitan dengan pembatalan writ saman -Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.- keadaan dimana Mahkamah boleh menggunakan kuasanya untuk membatalkan sesuatu tindakan - kes yang jelas tanpa perlu tafsiran sahaja - proses singkat dalam undang-undang untuk mengakhiri sesuatu prosiding - jelas pada zahirnya sesuatu tuntutan atau jawapan kepada tuntutan tidak dapat dipertahankan.- tidak boleh dipakai dengan jika kes tersebut memerlukan penelitian dokumen secara mendalam atau terdapat keterangan atau fakta kes untuk memerlukan satu penilaian sama ada sesuatu pihak mempunyai kuasa tindakan atau pembelaan.- tidak boleh dipakai jika perlu satu kupasan yang serius dan panjang lebar dan terdapat bantahan yang ditujukan kepada pliding atau isu untuk hujahan dibawah Aturan 33 Kaedah 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.- tiada kausa tindakan atau pembelaan yang munasabah - ia mengaibkan, remeh atau menyusahkan; - ia boleh menjejaskan, menghalang - melengahkan perbicaraan tindakan itu dengan adil; - ia adalah suatu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah, -pembelaan tidak dapat dipertahankan. - Mahkamah boleh memerentahkan -Membenarkan pihak yang tersilap untuk meminda Pernyataan Kes agar satu tuntutan yang sah -Membuat perentah “wajib taat” (unless order) bila memberi peluang untuk pembetulan sebarang kecacatan dalam butiran tuntutan atau pembelaan - Jika perentah wajib taat tidak dipatuhi, memasukkan penghakiman terhadap tuntutan.-Menggantung tuntutan atas kehendak Mahkamah dan memerintahkan satu pendengaran dibuat sebelum borang tuntutan dikeluarkan atau diserahkan atau-Membatalkan sebahagian pliding.-Membatalkan keseluruhan pernyataan kes - untuk permohonan geran probet yang dipertikaikan - Aturan 72 Kaedah 38 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 terpakai - tatacaranya -Tiap-tiap perkara bantahan hendaklah dirujuk kepada Hakim yang boleh menyelesaikan perkara dalam pertikaian.-Hakim boleh memilih -Membuat keputusan itu secara terus -mengarahkan supaya peruntukan Aturan 72 hendaklah terpakai.-Jika Hakim Bicara mendapati ia adalah sesuatu perkara yang boleh diselesaikan secara terus, maka saman pemula ditangguhkan untuk ke Mahkamah terbuka bagi pendengaran -Mahkamah boleh semasa pendengaran tertangguh itu boleh memutuskan --sama ada memberikan -enggan memberikan permohonan dalam saman pemula itu -membuat apa-apa perintah lain sebagaimana yang difikirkan adil.- prinsip perundangan - jika terdapat pertikaian, -kaji sama ada pertikaian adalah berasas atau sebaliknya-mana-mana pihak yang mempertahankan sesuatu geran probet atau suratcara pentadbiran harta pusaka mempunyai beban untuk membuktikan bahwa suratcara pentadbiran atau geran probet diperolehi dengan cara yang sah dan adil-mana-mana pihak yang mempertahankan tindakan yang dilakukan pada menjalankan kuasa yang dikurniakan oleh suratcara pentadbiran harta pusaka atau geran probet bertanggungan untuk menunjukkan kesemua tindakan tersebut adalah bersesuaian dengan prinsip perundangan dan keadilan.-Jika pihak yang mempertahankan suratcara pentadbiran harta pusaka / geran probet / tindakan yang dibuat dengan kuasa yang dikurniakan oleh geran probet atau suratcara pentadbiran berjaya membuktikan semuanya teratur dan bersesuaian dengan prinsip perundangan dan keadilan, - beban untuk menunjukkan sebaliknya berpindah kepada pihak yang mencabar suratcara tersebut - Beban kepada pihak yang mencabar untuk menunjukkan salah laku atau salahguna kuasa atau ketidakadilan atau tindakan Pentadbir harta pusaka dan ianya adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang- pada keseimbangan kebarangkalian.-Jika pembuktian berjaya dilaksanakan oleh kedua-dua belah pihak maka, - memberi nilai yang lebih tinggi kepada pihak yang mencabar suratcara pentadbiran - membuka jalan untuk perbicaraan penuh dan keterangan lisan dan dokumentari perlu dikemukakan untuk mempertahan kes masing-masing. - jika berpuashati bahwa pihak mencabar berjaya membuktikan kes pada kesimbangan kebarangkalian boleh memilih -buat salah satu perentah berikut:-Membatalkan suratcara pentadbiran harta pusaka / geran probet / tindakan yang dibuat dengan kuasa yang dikurniakan oleh geran probet atau suratcara pentadbiran tersebut dan / atau-Melantik Pelaksana / Pentadbir yang baru. -Memutuskan sebarang tindakan yang dikehendaki oleh keadilan - hanya ketidakpatuhan tatacara yang mengakibatkan kegagalan keadilan yang serius - tidak boleh diganti dengan kos - pindaan - kedua-duanya sekali yang dibenarkan - dibawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 - keadilan sebagai matlamat agungnya -jika berlaku pertembungan antara dua jenis keadilan, - keadilan substantive lebih aula (penting) dari keadilan posedural - Keadilan yang dimaksudkan adalah keadilan yang berpaksikan undang-undang. 2 In LAI CHENG OOI (F) (THE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LEE TAIN TSHUNG @ LEE THIEN CHIUNG, DECEASED) V LIM SAN PEEN (LIQUIDATOR FOR NASLEI ENTERPRISE SDN BHD) & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2017] 6 MLJ 218, held: (1) Any ex parte order was liable to be set aside by the party which had been served with such an order or by any party which was affected by such order. The court was not functus officio as the right of the party affected to be heard remained subsisting. Separate proceedings to impeach the ex parte order were not mandatory. Orders obtained in breach of the rules of natural justice could be set aside in the same proceedings or in collateral proceedings ex debito justitiae (see para 12). (2)…. (3) It did not matter whether the same or different judge set aside the ex parte order as either judge would have the jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte orders. As the orders were entered in the absence of parties who ought to have been heard, it would come under the exception to the general rule as to functus officio (see para 15). 2 Whether an accused person, upon being investigated under the Armed Forces Act 1972 and where the charge is not dealt with summarily, be remanded automatically under section 96(3) of the said Act without having to consider the remand procedures prescribed under section 94 of the Act and rules 4,15(1), 15(2), 16(1), and 38(1) of the Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, with regard to remand pending trial by a Court Martial 2 Whether an express remand order is required under section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act 1972. 2 Once there is an allegation of unlawful detention, the burden shifts to the detaining authority to show that the detention was made under a valid legal power 2 DAN 2 Judicial review application - The extent of immunity enjoyed by an international organisation in Malaysia - Whether the legal immunity conferred on the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) in its capacity as an international organisation pursuant to the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1992 (‘the IOPIA’) applies in judicial review proceedings brought against the AIAC in relation to its domestic and statutory functions under the the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – Whether the immunity from suit and from other legal process in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the IOPIA conferred upon the AIAC as an international organisation under the KLRCA Regulations is applicable to render the AIAC immune from judicial review of acts and decisions made by the AIAC in its capacity as the domestic and statutory adjudication authority under the CIPAA - Whether the High Court’s inherent powers in judicial review proceedings can be ousted by the immunity conferred on the AIAC by virtue of legislations passed by Parliament, i.e., the IOPIA and the CIPAA - Whether there is a necessity to draw a distinction on the capacity of the AIAC either as an international arbitral institution or the statutory adjudication authority before the AIAC is entitled to enjoy the immunity conferred under the IOPIA and the CIPAA – Appeal allowed. 2 Beban pembuktian 3 elemen di bawah seksyen 300 (c) Kanun Keseksaan. 2 Sama ada kecederaan terhadap si mati tersebut mencukupi pada lazimnya untuk menyebabkan kematian? 2 Maksud frasa ‘mencukupi pada lazimnya menyebabkan kematian’ atau dalam Bahasa Inggerisnya, ‘sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death’ 2 Intipati kesalahan di bawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan 2 Kesalahan bersubahat 2 Land Reference. Whether the compensation under compulsory acquisition should be based on the land had not been surrendered or the land was intended to be surrendered. The Federal Court had decided the land in question had not been surrendered. Hence, matter was sent to High Court to determine the amount of compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960. 2 Negligence Highway Concessionaire; Contractor of Highway Concessionaire Maintaining and Keeping in Good Repair and Condition of High Way; Statutory Duty; Duty of Care; Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 (Act 306); Non-Delegable Duty; Reasonable Care; Appellate Intervention; Whether PLUSRonda patrol sufficient. 2 Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - pembuktian niat bersama untuk menyebabkan kematian - motif - percanggahan keterangan antara saksi pendakwaan - pengecualian di bawah seksyen 300 Kanun Keseksaan - ketidakcekapan peguam perbicaraan - keterangan mengikut keadaan - keterangan rakan sejenayah yang tidak disokong 2 Contract – offer and acceptance – counter offer Sale of land – whether acceptance by the purchaser is conditional Whether the inclusion of additional terms in the acceptance amounted to a counter offer Whether there is a valid contract 2 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 – Seksyen 254 dan 256 – Perintah jualan – Gadaian berdaftar – Pembiayaan Islam (Commodity Murabahah Term Financing-i) – Kemungkiran pembayaran – Notis Borang 16D – Penyampaian melalui pos berdaftar – Anggapan penyampaian sah – “Cause to the contrary” – Pertikaian kuantum – Keuntungan belum terperoleh (unearned profit) – Harga jualan (Sale Price) – Ibra’ – Hak statutori pemegang gadaian – Permohonan mengetepikan penghakiman ingkar dalam tindakan berasingan – Kesan terhadap prosiding perintah jualan – Hak yang boleh dikuatkuasakan – Kos. 2 Constructive dismissal claims — Alleged cumulative breaches (salary reductions, unpaid allowances, relocation, change in management) — Resignations in February 2020 — Dispute on attendance and communication of constructive dismissal notice. — Whether resignation proximate to breaches — Extended delay — Inconsistent reasons — Resignation not sufficiently proximate; afterthought. — January 2020 salary — “On and off” attendance — No contemporaneous proof — No entitlement to full salary.— Communication of constructive dismissal notice — Email to “Aileen” unproven — Material witness not called — Notice not proved communicated.— Unpaid travel allowance — No claim forms, receipts, payroll or bank records — Allowance claim unproven. — Principles — Contract test for constructive dismissal — Fundamental breach going to the root — Prompt resignation required — Cumulative breaches require a clear causal nexus. — Appeal standard — Rehearing under s 33C IRA and O 55 r 2 ROC — Deference to primary fact-finding unless plainly wrong. 2 CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Solicitation and receipt of gratification – Public officers demanding bribes to avoid enforcement raids – Surveillance recordings and trap money – Whether elements of offence under ss 16(a)(B) and 17(a) MACC Act established – Whether statutory presumption under s 50 MACC Act properly invoked – Whether video evidence inadmissible for lack of compliance with statutory requirements under s 43(4) MACC Act– Whether non-preparation of recovery memo fatal to prosecution – Whether investigating officer lacked independence – Delay in filing complaint and failure to mention solicitation – Whether failure to produce recovery memo and interception certificate under renders conviction unsafe – Whether trial judge erred in law 2 Criminal Procedure - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Offence under s.385 of the Penal Code - Putting fear in order to commit extortion - Fear of sex videos made by the complainants would be reported to the Pejabat Agama - Whether the Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and in fact when convicting the accused - Credibility of prosecution witnesses - Whether ingredients of the charge have been proved - No judicial misappreciation by Sessions Court Judge - Appeal against conviction dismissed - Accused was a policeman entrusted with security and safety of the public - Sentence of imprisonment increased from 3 years to 5 years 2 Rogol gadis bawah umur ujian kelelakian adakah perlu, jika tiada adakah jejaskan kes pendakwaan. jika ada keterangan lain tunjukkan tertuuduh mampu lakukan hubungan seks. 2 Land Acquisition Act 1960 — Land reference proceedings — Compensation — Assessment of market value — First Schedule para 1(1A) — Comparable sales — Application of valuation principles — Vicinity and locality — Permissive language of ‘regard may be had ’ — Use of single comparable — Reliability and weight of evidence — Nusantara Daya principle — Government and private assessors’ opinions — Section 49(1) — Prohibition of appeal on quantum of compensation — Distinction between question of law and question of fact — Whether appeal raises questions of law — Scope of appellate jurisdiction — Appeals permissible only on questions of law 2 jurisdiction of the Syariah High Court - renunciation case or ab initio case - renunciation cases fall within jurisdiction of Syariah Courts - definition of a Muslim in the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 (ARIE 2003) - definition of Muslim on legal identity determines whether one professes the religion of Islam as per Item 1 of the State List - section 2(1) of the ARIE 2003 - section 61 (3) (b) and section 74(2) of the ARIE 2003 - section 111 of the Islamic Family Law Enactment (State of Selangor) 2003 (IFLE 2003) 2 Adjudication Proceedings - Jurisdiction of an adjudicator - Section 27 of CIPAA - Section 5 of CIPAA 2012 - Payment claim - Section 4 of CIPAA 2012 defines “payment" – Issue: Whether the adjudicator had acted in excess of jurisdiction by allowing the late payment interest? - Section 27(1) of the CIPAA - The arbitrator's jurisdiction 'is limited to the matter referred to adjudication' - Sections 5 and 6 of the CIPAA - The 'powers' of the adjudicator - Sections 25 and 26 of the CIPAA - Section 15 of CIPAA 2012 - Improperly procured adjudication decision - Jurisdictional Issue - Late Payment Interest - Enforcement of adjudication decision as judgment - section 28(1) and (2) of CIPAA 2012 - 2 Whether sale and purchase of land transactions were sham transactions- Whether illegal moneylending transactions were disguised as genuine sale and purchase transactions - Whether it is appropriate for the court to scrutinise the documents and transactions when there is an allegation of illegal money lending activities - Whether the doctrine of in pari delicto and ex turpi causa non oritur action applicable-Whether the trail court was plainly wrong 2 Common Agreed Bundle of Documents (CABD) - Evidential status of documents placed in Part A of the CABD - Whether the High Court was wrong in not accepting the Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA) when all parties agreed to its admissibility under Part A of the CABD - Whether documents in Part A of the CABD only agreement on contents of documents and not truth of contents - Order 34 rule (2)(2)(c)(d)(e) of the ROC 2012 - Whether the SPA was a moneylending transaction - Whether D2 was negligent in handling the SPA transaction - Whether D2 owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff who had their own solicitors. 2 Authorities had shut down the quarry operations at the Cheras Quarry Lands - Whether the Plaintiff had wrongfully and prematurely exercised the options to purchase the lands - Whether the decision of the Authorities is final- Whether the extraction of rocks from the earth is possible - Whether the cessation of quarry operations is final or temporary - Whether the Cessation Date triggered - Whether the decision of the Authorities can be subject to collateral challenge - Whether clause 37 of the Shareholders Agreement and the Option Agreements survived the SPQ Restructure Agreement - Commercial Contracts - Whether business common sense interpretation should be applied - Whether the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" applicable. 2 professional medical negligence - Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Bill [Parliamentary Debate (PHFS Bill)] - effect of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (PHFSA) and Private Healthcare Facilities & Services (Private Hospitals and other Private Healthcare Facilities) Regulations 2006 (PHFSR) on the question of whether a “private hospital” (defined in s 2 PHFSA) owed a non-delegable duty of care to the private hospital’s patients (notwithstanding the fact that the patients were only treated by medical consultants at the private hospital who were its independent contractors and not its employees or agents). 2 Breach of contract - Unlawful termination of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 24.03.2014 and Supplementary Agreement dated 13.09.2018 - The central issue is whether there was a valid extension of time of 30 months and this turns on whether D4 had “ostensible” authority to sign the SA which was signed and sent to the Plaintiff via WhatsApp on 29 November 2018. The SA was given to D4 at the meeting on 13 September 2018. It is clear from the evidence that D4 did take it back and discussed the issue of extension with his siblings (the other co-owners) and when he was asked to sign and return the SA, he did so via WhatsApp. D4 also encashed the Plaintiff’s cheque for RM10,000.00, which D4 claimed was a “commission”. We also note that during cross-examination, D4 was not very forthright about the payment of RM10,000.00. It is imperative to note that the sum of RM10,000.00 was not even part of the Plaintiff’s pleaded case. - the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in toto. There was nothing in the Statement of Claim by way of a plea based on “quantum meruit” or “unjust enrichment” in order for the Court to exercise its discretion to assess damages under these heads - Appeal 353 and the appeal is allowed and the High Court Order dated 29 January 2024, to the extent where it ordered the Defendants to pay RM421,113.25 to the Plaintiff and upon such payment the 25 individual titles are to be released to the Defendants, is hereby set aside. A Consequential Order that the sum of RM421,113.25 with all interest accrued thereon, presently held by the Defendants solicitors Messrs. P. Paramjothy & Co. be forthwith released to the Defendants. All 25 individuals titles i.e. for HS(M) 22601 to HS(M)22626, PT 44606 to PT44630, Mukim Tanjung Dua Belas, Daerah Kuala Langat held by Messrs. Nordin Torji & Partners as stakeholder, be released forthwith to the Defendants solicitors, Messrs. P. Paramjothy & Co. 2 Pertuduhan membunuh di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan (KK) - Niat bersama Seksyen 34 KK - Sama ada intipati Seksyen 300(c) KK dibuktikan - Pembelaan Kedua-dua Tertuduh gagal menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes Pendakwaan - Kedua-dua Tertuduh dihukum gantung sampai mati. 2 seksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - mitigasi kedua-dua perayu / tertuduh - faktor-faktor peringanan – factor-faktor pemberatan seperti kepentingan awam, keseriusan kesalahan dan trend penghukuman - Perayu dijatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan selama 17 tahun dari tarikh tangkap 10 November 2018 dan 10 kali sebatan 2 Seksyen 39B (1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama - Seksyen 12 (2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39A (1) Akta yang sama dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Isu: Sama ada wujudnya percanggahan material di antara keterangan saksi-saksi SP7 dan SP8 mengenai perjumpaan dadah-dadah - Prosiding di bawah seksyen 154 Akta Keterangan 1950 untuk menyoal balas saksi - seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah gagal di dalam pertimbangannya untuk mengambil kira keseluruhan keterangan - memprejudiskan tertuduh dan mengakibatkan berlakunya salah laksana keadilan - Seksyen 182A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – Isu: Sama ada wujud keraguan terhadap identiti dadah yang dirampas - Rantaian barang kes terpelihara dengan baik – Isu: Sama ada wujud kelompangan dalam kes pendakwaan atas kegagalan memanggil saksi - inferens yang menentang menurut seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - tidak wujud apa-apa withholding or suppression of evidence - tiada kelompangan atau inferens yang menentang yang berbangkit terhadap kes pendakwaan 2 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Kegagalan hakim bicara untuk menghargai kes pembelaan sehingga menyebabkan berlaku pelanggaran seksyen 182A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk menawarkan penyewa premis rumah tersebut kepada pihak pembelaan telah menyekat hak perayu untuk mendapat perbicaraan yang adil - anggapan penghuni premis mengikut seksyen 37(b) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - prinsip inferens yang menentang - seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - keterangan yang melimpah ruah - Perayu telah dinafikan haknya untuk mendapat perbicaraan yang adil apabila pihak pendakwaan gagal untuk mengemukakan fakta yang menyebelahi perayu - seksyen 51A(1)(c) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk mendedahkan percakapan beramaran - ketidakaturan yang tidak membawa kepada salah laksana keadilan - penyalahgunaan anggapan statutori mengikut seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - “dianggap mempunyai pengetahuan” (deemed knowledge) - “dianggap memiliki” deemed possession) - pemilikan terus (direct possession) - memprejudiskan kerana telah meletakkan beban yang lebih tinggi - milikan sebenar (actual possession) mengikut seksyen 37(da) dibaca bersama dapatan pengedaran melalui keterangan terus (direct evidence) mengikut seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya - evidential burden yang pikul hanyalah untuk menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah - kesilapan telah memprejudiskan kerana meletakkan beban yang tinggi pada perayu untuk mematahkan anggapan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian - tiga tahap pembuktian - Pertama, melampaui keraguan yang munasabah (beyond reasonable doubt) - Kedua, imbangan kebarangkalian (balance of probabilities) - Ketiga, keraguan yang munasabah (create a reasonable doubt ) - perayu didapati bersalah terhadap kesalahan pemilikan 2 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah – anggapan dibawah seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - keterangan terus - pemilikan sebenar (actual possession) - anggapan pengedaran (presumed trafficking) - seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - definisi pengedaran terus (direct trafficking) - seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - beban keterangan (evidential burden) - menimbulkan suatu keraguan yang munasabah – bukan beban di atas imbangan kebarangkalian - seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum mengikut seksyen 39A (2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 2 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama - seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama - anggapan yang menentang di bawah 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - withholding or suppression of evidence - seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - seksyen 9 Akta Keterangan 1950 - anggapan undang-undang di bawah seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - tafsiran 'pengedaran dadah' di bawah Akta yang sama - Seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - kegagalan keadilan (failure of justice) atau ketidakadilan yang substansial (substantial injustice) 2 Isu- pembelaan pergaduhan mengejut dan pemakaian peruntukan Kecualian 4 s 300 KK. OKT perlu memenuhi keempat-empat inti pati yang telah ditetapkan sebelum ia boleh berjaya dalam pembelaannya menurut Kecualian 4 s 300 KK. Inti pati pertama Kecualian 4 s 300 KK, iaitu wujudnya “pergaduhan mengejut”. Inti pati kedua Kecualian 4 s 300 KK, iaitu tiadanya penyediaan awal untuk melakukan kesalahan. Inti pati ketiga, wujudnya tempoh bertenang.Inti pati keempat Kecualian 4 s 300 KK, iaitu OKT tidak mengambil kesempatan yang tidak adil atau bertindak dengan cara yang kejam atau luar biasa semasa melakukan perbuatan yang menyebabkan kematian si mati. Elemen niat OKT untuk menyebabkan kematian atau niat untuk mendatangkan kecederaan yang berkemungkinan menyebabkan kematian terhadap si mati (pergaduhan mengejut). OKT gagal menunjukkan bahawa pihaknya berupaya untuk bergantung kepada Kecualian 4 s 300 KK ketika melakukan kesalahan menyebabkan kematian kepada si mati. 2 Permohonan untuk dilepaskan dengan jaminan sementara menunggu perbicaraan -atas alasan sakit dan uzur– pemohon dalam tahanan reman-kesalahan di bawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) – Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonan jaminan- pemohon membuat permohonan di Mahkamah Rayuan - Mahkamah akan menggunakan kuasa budi bicaranya bagi membenarkan permohonan untuk dilepaskan dengan jaminan hanya apabila pemohon dapat menunjukkan penyakit atau keuzuran. 2 BA-12B-41-05/2023, BA-12B-42-05/2023 and BA-12B-43-06/2023 are consolidated appeals arising from the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge delivered on 19 May 2023. The Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising out of a motor-vehicle accident was dismissed, while the counterclaim of the Third Defendant, the insurer of the vehicle, was allowed with costs. BA-12B-41-05/2023 – the Plaintiff’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim and the allowance of the insurer’s counterclaim; BA-12B-42-05/2023 – the First and Second Defendants’ appeal confined to the order on costs; and BA-12B-43-06/2023 – the insurer’s appeal on quantum. This Court decided to allow the appeals in BA-12B-41-05/2023 and BA-12B-42-05/2023, and dismissed the appeal in BA-12B-43-06/2023. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Third Defendant filed four separate appeals to the Court of Appeal which are appeal against the decision in BA-12B-41-05/2023 on the issue of liability, quantum, Third Defendant’s counterclaim and award of costs; appeal against the decision in BA-12B-41-05/2023 on the dismissal of the Third Defendant’s oral application for nursing care payments to be made through Amanah Raya Berhad; appeal against the decision in BA-12B-42-05/2023 on the issue of liability, counterclaim and award of costs; and appeal against the decision in BA-12B-43-06/2023 on the issue of quantum. 2 Tort – Kecuaian – Treler muatan luar biasa – Muatan melintang laluan – Tiada lampu amaran – Permit tidak sah – Kegagalan SOP eskot – Prima facie kecuaian – Tanggungjawab lebih tinggi kenderaan berat – Pembahagian liabiliti. Keterangan – Percanggahan saksi – Kebolehpercayaan – Pembayaran saman sebagai pengakuan sokongan. Undang-undang Trafik – Pelanggaran Kaedah 16 Kaedah Lalu Lintas 1959 – Amalan keselamatan muatan besar. Ganti Rugi – Penilaian kuantum – Garis panduan – Kecederaan otak serius – Kos penjagaan masa hadapan – Tiada asas menaikkan kuantum. Prosedur – Rayuan & rayuan silang – Standard campur tangan – Liabiliti diselaraskan 90:10. 2 Appeal - Tort - Trespass to land - Unregistered lease - Rights of the occupier of land against that of the registered proprietor - Whether there is an Agreement to Lease – Successor in title question – Whether management corporation is bound by the Agreement to Lease entered by Developer with third party - Whether this action is time-barred 2 Land Reference. Land Acquisition Act 1960. Whether compensation can be awarded for a piece of land which was not part of the acquisition but adjacent to acquired land. 2 Land Reference - Section 38 (2) LAA 1960 - Section 38 (3) LAA 1960 - the word "shall" - whether to be construed as mandatory or directory - Section 38 (5) LAA 1960 - jurisdiction of Court. 2 Bankruptcy – Appeal to Judge in Chambers – Appeal against decision of Senior Assistant Registrar for Application to set aside Bankruptcy Notice – Final Judgement - Absence of bona fide basis for appeal – Attempt to delay satisfaction of a valid and binding judgement debt – Attempt to delay and obstruct enforcement of valid judgement - Outstanding judgement exceed bankruptcy threshold – Locus standi – Change of name of Judgement Creditor - Defective service – Leave should be obtained prior – Mala fide – Oppressive – Unjust Enrichment – Other modes of execution has not be exhausted – Jointly and severally liable - Section 28(5) and (6) Companies Act 2016 – Section 131 Insolvency Act 1967. 2 Suit 121 and Suit 184 heard together – LSM bought a piece of land from the owner of unqualified title – once final title issued, TCF was allotted the land in within LSM land - Whether the Land Office was negligent in issuing the final title inserting TCF plots (A-160) in between LSM's plot A-41 and Lau Chui Lian and Yap Chun plot (A-40, lot 25788) - I am of the opinion that the sale and purchase transaction does not automatically confer a registrable right to LSM - Under sections 89 and 340(1) of the NLC, every document of title must be registered to be conclusive evidence of ownership. At the time of the SAP, the final title has yet to be registered, and the land is still state land. Therefore, in view of having an indefeasible title, the SAP transaction does not confer such conclusiveness -In conclusion, I am of the view that the registration was obtained regularly under the NLC, and the Land Office was not negligent in issuing the final title to TCF. Considering the factual surroundings of this case, I find that the LSM had failed to establish her case against the Land Office and TCF in Suit 121 and therefore, Suit 121 is dismissed with costs - Consequently, I will allow TCF claim for vacant possession in suit 184 prayer (i) of the Statement of Claim, and damages consequent to that will be assessed separately. Suit 184 is allowed with cost. 2 The Pertinent Issues 2 - the learned Adjudicator did not consider or rely on any of the alleged fraudulent statements made by ES Structure in its Adjudication Reply. As such, it is my view that Swaja has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the AD has been improperly procured through fraud by ES Structure. 2 -Adjudicator had provided Swaja similar extension of time to file its Adjudication Response as he had done for ES Structure. 2 -no evidence produced to this court to show that the learned Adjudicator has prior or existing relationships between himself and ES Structure in order to substantiate the allegation that the Adjudicator had not acted independently in arriving to his decision 2 -Swaja has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that there was denial of natural justice in the Adjudication Proceedings. 2 -Sg Besi Construction has failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the Arbitrator had breached any public policy and or had breached the rules of natural justice in making his findings. 2 -Sg Besi Construction has failed to prove to this court that the Arbitrator had breach the rule of natural justice in granting the cost in the Cost Award. Based on the foregoing, 2 -Sg Besi Construction has not raised any issues as to there being any irregularity in complying with the provisions of Section 38 of the AA 2005. 2 1. Two applications were addressed in this judgment. 2 2. The Husband’s application in Originating Summons No: BA-24F-69-03/2024 was for sole guardianship, full custody care and control of the two children of the marriage be granted to him. 2 3. The Wife filed a mirror application in BA-33-456-06/2024 via Enclosure 8 for interim sole guardianship, custody care and control of both children of the marriage pending the hearing of the Judicial Separation Petition (JSP). The Wife is also seeking for further orders for the two children of the marriage to be returned to the matrimonial home upon the granting of the order. 2 4. Encl 1 of BA-24F-69-03/2024 and Encl 8 of BA-33-456-06/2024 applications were heard before me on 30 April 2025 and after perusing the cause papers filed, the respective written and oral submissions of the parties and after interviewing the 2 children of the marriage, I ordered that the Petitioner Wife and Respondent Husband shall be given joint guardianship and custody of both children but care and control shall be given to the Respondent Husband until final disposal of the JSP. 2 This case arises from a clash of claims over a piece of charged land, a moneylending agreement, and the legal boundaries of enforcement pursuant to section 256 of the National Land Code. The Plaintiff, invoking its rights under a registered charge, seeks an Order for Sale and other consequential reliefs against the Defendant’s land. The Defendant, while conceding to the execution of a Moneylending Agreement on 27 September 2021 for a credit facility of RM3,000,000.00 between the Plaintiff and the borrower and the subsequent registration of the third-party charge, mounts a vigorous challenge. Central to this dispute is the Defendant’s assertion that the Moneylending Agreement is fraught with fundamental issues – issues so critical that the Defendant asserts as purportedly constituting a “cause to the contrary” within the meaning of section 256(3) of the National Land Code. This application, therefore, rests on a delicate intersection of fact and law, warranting careful judicial scrutiny. 2 The Superseding Issue 2 Application for leave to file JR against the Fatwa issued by Respondents identifying the Applicants as deviants from the true teachings of Islam. The AG’ objected to the applications on the grounds that - (i) the Fatwa is not amenable to judicial review by virtue of Article 121(1A) FC; and (ii) the Fatwa is not justiciable as it is an exercise of the royal prerogative. Objections allowed and the applications were dismissed. 2 Sections 346(2)(e), 465(1)(f) and 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”)- Petitioners are investors who subscribed to Redeemable Preference Shares Islamic (“RPS-i”) issued by the Respondent pursuant to Subscription Agreements and an Information Memorandum- Respondent has failed to pay monthly returns and to redeem the RPS-i upon maturity- Respondent opposes the petition- petition constitutes an abuse of process to exert pressure for repayment- no debt presently exists-the alleged obligations are conditional upon distributable profits and unfulfilled contractual preconditions- three Petitioners were ineligible to participate as “Sophisticated Investors” within the meaning of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”)- Whether there exists an undisputed, presently due debt entitling the Petitioners to invoke section 465(1)(f)-Whether the Petitioners’ alleged rights to returns and redemption have crystallised-Whether there is oppression or other conduct rendering it just and equitable to wind up the Company-Whether the petition amounts to an abuse of process- Petitioners have produced no contrary financial evidence- no debt has arisen. The alleged “monthly returns” are expectations, not debts due-Section 465(1)(h) is generally invoked where there is a deadlock, loss of substratum, or exclusion of shareholders with a legitimate expectation of participation in management- Petitioners are holders of non-voting RPS-i shares-they are passive investors with no managerial or governance rights- No evidence has been adduced of deadlock, exclusion, or misconduct by directors-The loss of confidence in management, however genuine, does not of itself justify a winding-up order under section 465(1)(h)- this petition is not a bona fide invocation of insolvency jurisdiction but a device to exert commercial pressure- no clear, presently due, and undisputed debt has been established- No oppression, mismanagement, or breakdown of substratum has been proven-the petition amounts to an abuse of the winding-up process- the petition is dismissed. 2 Termination of winding up order-contributory and former director of the company has expended RM8million to redeem charged lands to settle the purchasers’ claims- settlement agreement-liquidator not to proceed with liquidation-Liquidator breached the understanding by proceeding to sell the lands at undervalue and without the director’s consent-Director alleges forgery in the process of obtaining titles-director seeks for termination of winding up order and ancillary reliefs under section 486(2), 494 and 510 Companies Act 2016 (‘ÇA 2016’)-whether the applicant has met the threshold for terminating the winding up order-whether the alleged misconduct by the liquidator justifies judicial intervention under section 486(2)-whether the applicant has locus standi and/or procedural compliance to pursue relief against the liquidator-section 493-court may order the termination of a winding up where there is proof to the satisfaction of the court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up ought to be terminated-the legal burden lies squarely on the applicant to make a positive of sufficient case for termination-factors to be considered by court under section 493-whether debts of the company to its creditors have been satisfied-whether stakeholders agree to the termination-other facts the court considers appropriate-termination of a winding up order is not appropriate where debts are not fully settled-applicant fail to present concrete and credible evidence to show that company is viable and capable of operating as going concern-the liquidator opposed the termination-it is against public interest and against commercial morality to terminate a winding up without clarity that all creditors obligations have been met or that a legitimate and viable business continuation plan exists-applicant seeks relief under section 510 without obtaining leave from court-procedural defects-applicant’s complaints of misfeasance and forgery are inadequately supported- there is also unexplained delay in filing the application-applicant failed to demonstrate that PASB or ATSB are viable going concerns-the challenge of the Liquidator’s remuneration is misconceived-application is dismissed with costs. 2 Rayuan jenayah – pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12 (2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dihukum di bawah seksyen 12 (3) ADB. Sama ada hukuman berjalan serentak atau berturut-turut. “One Transaction Rule” dan ‘Totality Principle’ 2 Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman – seksyen 39A(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB 1952), seksyen 12(2) ADB1952, seksyen 12(3) ADB 1952, seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 dan seksyen 30(5) Akta – kes remit dari Mahkamah Tinggi ke Mahkamah Majistret- didengar semula selepas keputusan di akhir kes pembelaan di Mahkamah Majistret- keterangan bersumpah di kandang saksi - di akhir peringkat kes pembelaan - hak Mahkamah untuk mencampuri atau memperbetulkan dapatan mahkamah yang lebih rendah- pembelaan gagal menimbulkan keraguan - prima facie -fikiran terkemudian - milikan dadah berbahaya- dalam kawalan perayu - tatakelakuan saksi memberi keterangan- pengetahuan tentang keberadaan dadah- keterangan saksi pembelaan adalah ‘bare denial’ - adakah hukuman ‘manifestly excessive’ kepada Perayu 2 - Tertuduh-tertuduh melakukan kesalahan rompakan berkumpulan - Hukuman bagi dua kes berbeza - sama ada hukuman hendaklah berjalan serentak atau berturutan - kepentingan awam dan kekerapan rompakan berkumpulan telah dipertimbangkan 2 Seksyen 395, 397 Kanun Keseksaan Seksyen 282(d), 292 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 2 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan – Tuduhan merogol di rumah sewa tertuduh – Sama ada terdapat inferens yang timbul daripada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh di akhir kes pendakwaan – Sama ada elemen-elemen bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan – Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan – Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen terlampau ringan – Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 375(b) & 376(1) 2 Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman – s.16(A)(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (“Akta SPRM 2009”) dan s. 28(1)(c) Akta yang sama – sama ada hakim bicara gagal membuat penilaian yang maksima dalam memutuskan kes prima facie bagi OKT1 dan OKT2 di peringkat pendakwaan – sama ada peruntukkan seksyen 50 ASPRM 2009 terpakai - tiada keterangan atau bukti yang menunjukkan “money trail” atau jejakan wang ke tertuduh - bayaran-bayaran yang dibuat adalah ekoran pemerasan / ugutan oleh tertuduh – sama ada keterangan saksi pendakwaan adalah dengar cakap (hearsay) 2 This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Sessions Court at Shah Alam in convicting them for an offence under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under section 39A(2) of the said Act read together with section 34 of the Penal Code for possession of 37.47 grams of methamphetamine. The learned Session Court Judge (SCJ) sentenced the appellants to eleven years imprisonment and twelve strokes of the rotan. After hearing the parties I dismissed the appeal and maintained the decision of the SCJ. The appellants now appeal further to the Court of Appeal. 2 The accused was charged with trafficking 4751 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the Act) and for the use of a silver coloured Naza Citra car JLA 8284 with the intention of trafficking drugs under section 3(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988. After hearing the evidence led for the prosecution and at the end of their case, I reduced the first charge (P3) to one of possession (P45) under section 12(2) read together with section 39A (2) of the Act and acquitted and discharged the accused for the second charge P4. The accused was sentenced to nine years imprisonment from the date of arrest and ten strokes of the rotan. The prosecution being aggrieved now appeal to the Court of Appeal. 2 Prosedur jenayah - OKT dipanggil membela diri - OKT memilih untuk memberi keterangan tidak bersumpah dari kandang OKT - sama ada pembelaan OKT dadah berbahaya adalah untuk kegunaan sendiri adalah pembelaan bermerit - sama ada keterangan OKT berjaya menyangkal anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da)(xvi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 2 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman – Tertuduh pertama mengaku bersalah terhadap pertuduhan-pertuduhan di bawah ss39B(1) dan 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Pengakuan bersalah di peringkat awal kes – Keperluan menjatuhkan hukuman yang memberi kesan pencegahan – Keperluan menjaga kebajikan anak kecil tertuduh pertama dan tertuduh kedua 2 Kesalahan pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – tertuduh diberi pertuduhan pilihan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama. 2 Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman minimum. 2 Bekas majikan berjanji untuk menggaji semula tertuduh selepas tamat menjalani hukuman – penekanan kepada rehabilitasi tertuduh – hal keadaan kes berbeza dengan kes yang lazim. 2 Faktor-faktor lain yang dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah. 2 Seksyen 6, 39A(2), 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. 2 The accused pleaded guilty unconditionally to both charges and thereafter I sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment from the date of his arrest and twelve strokes of the rotan for the first charge under section 302 of the Penal Code and ten years imprisonment from the date of arrest and one stroke of the rotan for the second charge under section 377C of the Penal Code. Both the sentences to run concurrently. The accused being dissatisfied with the sentence meted out has now appealed to the Court of Appeal . The Public Prosecutor has also filed a cross appeal on the exiguousness of the sentence. But the Public Prosecutor’s appeal is only regarding the murder charge. 2 Prosedur jenayah - OKT1 dan OKT2 dituduh bersama mengedar dadah dan OKT3 dituduh dituduh mengedar dadah- Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan satu kes prima facie dan kesemua OKT dipanggil membela diri - OKT1 membuat pilihan berdiam diri - OKT2 memberi keterangan bersumpah di kandang saksi membangkitkan kehadiran individu dipanggil "Anei" - tidak ada maklumat lengkap seperti nama diberikan untuk polis membuat siasatan - OKT3 merupakan pemandu kereta yang mana barang kes dadah dibawa di dalam kereta sepanjang perjalanan dan dadah berada di dalam bag kertas dalam keadaan terbuka di atas kerusi bersebelahan OKT3 - sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan sebarang keraguan terhadap kes pendakwaan 2 Pertuduhan bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah jenis Cannabis - Tertuduh disabitkan bersalah - pembuktian elemen milikan - mental dan fizikal - s. 8 dan s.27 Akta Keterangan 1950 - tindakan tertuduh menunjuk kotak berisi dadah - s.14.dan 15 Akta keterangan 1950 - keterangan fakta serupa antara 2 kes yang didengar bersama. 2 Criminal appeal – appeal against the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court Judge 2 Sentencing - the punishment imposed must not only concern on public interest, but also must be fair to the Appellant - at least, the Appellant should be given the opportunity to open up a new chapter at the end of his life after undergoing rehabilitation program in the prison 2 Plea of guilty - in general an accused person should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty 2 • Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya; • Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama; • Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan; • OKT 1 dan 2 hanya melihat kerja-kerja pemunggahan dilakukan; • Serbuan dilakukan sebaik sahaja kerja-kerja pemunggahan selesai; • SP15 bersetuju bahawa lelaki memandu kereta Myvi adalah orang terakhir menutup Gudang dan meninggalkan Gudang dan SP15 tidak dapat mengecamkan lelaki tersebut; • SP15 hanya mengetahui guni-guni tersebut mengandungi dadah Ketamine setelah ujian dilakukan melalui alat “Trunarc” di premis tersebut; • Kandungan guni tidak dapat dilihat dari luar dan hanya mengetahui dadah apabila membuat ujian menggunakan alat “trunarc”; • Samada OKT-OKT mempunyai milikan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut; • Siasatan dibuat Pegawai Penyiasat P16 adalah tidak menyeluruh dan tidak kemas; • Pendakwaan gagal untuk mengemukakan saksi; • Samada Pendakwaan Berjaya membuktikan Niat Bersama selaras dengan Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan; • Samada perbezaan berat dadah dari waktu SP15 merampas dadah-dadah tersebut sehingga dikemukakan di Mahkamah dapat mencacatkan kes pendakwaan; 2 Proprietary & Freezing Injunctions – injunction meant at preserving and restraining defendants from dealing with the plaintiffs’ assets or assets over which the plaintiffs has existing proprietary rights – Alleged fraud/misappropriation of money transferred from the Plaintiff Company’s account and held in the bank accounts of R&R Redrose Construction – Proprietary Injunction: requirement to prove constructive trust – Freezing Injunction: requirement to prove existence of an arguable case, defendants have assets within the jurisdiction of the court and there is risk of dissipation of assets – Consolidation under Order 4, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 201 : consolidation of proceedings generally not ordered unless there exist common questions of law and fact, real likelihood of inconsistent judgments – Proprietary, Freezing Injunction and consolidation application allowed. 2 Transfer of Proceedings – Order 57 Rules of Court 2012 – Section 23 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Application to transfer case filed by defendant Factors to be considered – forum non conveniens, financial position and hardship of the defendant, defendant’s ability to defend the action at the transferred court and plaintiff’s waiver of his right to sue in the transferred court – Decision: Temerloh High Court located at or nearest to the place where the cause of action arose. 2 Administrative Law — Judicial review — Certiorari, mandamus and declaration — Whether refusal to renew mining lease unlawful — Only lessee entitled to apply for renewal — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66; Pahang Mineral Regulations 2005, reg 45(1), Form 8B - JR applications by Geonex are dismissed with costs. Administrative Law — Locus standi — Whether applicant without title had sufficient interest — when dealing with the issue of locus standi as propounded by the minority of the Federal Court in Tan Sri Hj Othman Saat v Mohamed Ismail [1982] 1 LNS 2; Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises [2023] 3 MLJ 829; Nik Elin Zurina v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024] 3 CLJ 323 Judicial Review — Scope of review — Process and merits — Limits of R Rama Chandran's application — Applicant failed to prove Jabatan Mineral and PTG Pahang's decision were tainted by irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters or perversity — R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia [1997] 1 MLJ 145; Petroliam Nasional Bhd v Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288 Mining Law — Renewal of mining lease — Prescribed statutory form requires declaration by registered lessee — Application filed by third party company — Rejection upheld and new lease issued to another entity — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66. 2 Rasuah — Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Penjawat awam — Permintaan dan penerimaan wang suapan sebagai dorongan supaya tidak menjatuhkan hukuman penjara — Sama ada sabitan selamat — Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009, ss 16(a)(B), 17(a), 50(1); Kanun Keseksaan, s 165. Keterangan — Keterangbolehan rakaman audio dan transkripsi — Rantaian keterangan dan pengesahan suara — Sama ada kegagalan mengemukakan CCTV mematahkan kes pendakwaan — Memandangkan pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan utama dan bukan sekunder dalam membuktikan pertuduhan terhadap perayu, maka ketiadaan rakaman CCTV tidak langsung mendatangkan sebarang kesan negatif kepada kes pihak Pendakwaan - Rakaman CCTV adalah keterangan sokongan - Akta Keterangan 1950, ss 90A, 114(g) Amalan dan Tatacara — Pertuduhan — Sama ada kegagalan menyatakan sifat kesalahan dengan betul menyebabkan pertuduhan cacat atau mengelirukan — Sama ada percanggahan keterangan saksi material — Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss 152–156 dirujuk - tiada kecacatan dalam pertuduhan. 2 Digest: Rayuan perayu ditolak - Prinsip hukuman - Ganesan a/l Nachiappan v PP [2000] 3 MLJ 244, CA, Tan Sri Rahim Noor v PP [2001] 3 MLJ 1, CA, PP v Dato’ Waad Mansor [2005] 1 CLJ 421, PP v Hamidon Mat Yatim [1995] 3 CLJ 724 - Tiada keperluan Mahkaman mengganggu keputusan mahkamah bicara mengenai hukuman kerana tiada bukti bahawa hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah “manifestly excessive or illegal or not a proper sentence having regard to all facts disclosed or that the trial court has clearly erred in applying correct principles in the assessment of sentence. 2 Rujukan tanah - Pampasan yang diawardkan oleh Pentadbir Tanah tidak berpatutan - Mahkamah setelah meneliti pendapat pengapit-pengapit, laporan penilaian pemohon dan responden mengekalkan pampasan oleh Pentadbir Tanah. 2 Perbicaraan penuh - OKT 1 dan OKT 2 dituduh dengan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B ABD 1952 dan seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 - Kedua-dua OKT dibebaskan daripada kesemua pertuduhan. 2 SAMAN PEMULA: Permohonan pemohon untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa perjanjian sewaan ditamatkan dan juga untuk suatu perintah supaya responden menyerahkan milikan kosong premis tersebut kepada pemohon - Sama ada penerimaan bayaran sewa oleh pemohon daripada responden bagi bulan Mac dan April 2024 adalah satu penepian (waiver) kepada hak penamatan perjanjian penyewaan pemohon; dan Sama ada kes ini hendaklah dibicarakan melalui prosiding saman pemula ini atau perlu ditukarkan kepada prosiding writ saman. 2 RAYUAN JENAYAH : seksyen 376(3) Kanun Kesiksaan - Seksyen 402A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - tiada sebarang notis alibi telah diberikan oleh Perayu kepada pihak pendakwaan sama ada diperingkat pengurusan kes mahu pun sebelum Perayu memberi keterangan semasa perbicaraan kes di Mahkamah Sesyen - , jika pembelaan itu gagal atau tidak diterima oleh mahkamah, tiada lagi pembelaan alternatif lain yang boleh seseorang tertuduh itu bersandar kepadanya dan keterangannya akan terjumlah kepada penafian semata-mata. 2 Rayuan jenayah oleh pendakwaan terhadap keputusan HMS yang melepas dan membebaskan OKT daripada pertuduhan-pertuduhan memiliki dadah dan racun di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan Akta Racun 1952; 2 Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan milikan (possession) ke atas dadah dan racun yang dijumpai dalam sebuah beg atas lantai dalam bilik yang dihuni oleh OKT kerana gagal buktikan akses eksklusif OKT ke atas dadah/racun tersebut; 2 Hanya dengan kelakuan OKT cuba melarikan diri kerana terkejut tidak wajar dibuat inferensn tentang pengetahuan OKT terhadap dadah/racun yang dijumpai; 2 Hujah pendakwaan isu pembelaan terfikir kemudian (afterthought) adalah tidak bermerit kerana isu tersebut telah dibangkitkan dalam keterangan saksi pendakwaan dan selaras dengan keterangan kes pembelaan; 2 Rayuan pihak pendakwaan adalah ditolak dan keputusan HMS tentang perintah pelepasan dan pembebasan OKT adalah dikekalkan. 2 In essence, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the portion of its claim that the Learned JC had partly dismissed while the Defendant was dissatisfied with the portion of the Plaintiff’s claim that the Learned JC had partly allowed. 2 * Whether the Learned JC was correct to find that the plaintiff was not entitled to a cause of action under the tenancy agreement for alleged overdue rental. * whether the Learned JC was correct to find that the plaintiff was entitled to a cause of action for trespass only up to the issuance of form k. * whether the Learned JC was correct to allow the plaintiff’s alternative claim for trespass specifically over the access road * whether the Learned JC was correct to dismiss the plaintiff’s alternative claim for trespass specifically over the unidentifiable land. 2 Appeal – Bankruptcy – Adjudication – Annulment of Bankruptcy Order – Application under Section 105, Insolvency Act 1967 – Whether non-filing of Statement of Affairs by Judgment Debtors fatal to annulment application – Whether director’s bankruptcy can be annulled upon settlement of Company’s EPF contributions – Section 46, Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 – Whether failure to satisfy Proofs of Debt filed before and after the annulment application affects the application. – Right of Judgment Creditor. 2 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh di hukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Agent Provocateur - seksyen 40A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - anggapan kebolehterimaan (creditworthy) - naratif atau rantaian keterangan kes - inferens yang menentang - seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - withholding or suppression of evidence - keterangan dokumentar material seperti rakaman CCTV, telefon dan log / rekod panggilan dan wang tunjuk merupakan keterangan sokongan sahaja - kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan - “negotiated sale” - (pre- arranged plan) yang direncanakan (orchestrated) - (innocent carrier) 2 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - anggapan statutori di bawah Seksyen 37(da)(xvi) ADB 1952 - Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Perayu mempunyai kuasa untuk mengendalikan dadah sebagai pemilik, dengan mengecualikan orang lain - dadah dijumpai hasil daripada tunjuk arah oleh Perayu - Kunci bilik tempat dadah ditemui berada pada Perayu - kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk memanggil atau menawarkan rakan Tertuduh yang turut ditangkap bersama Tertuduh di tempat kejadian kepada pihak pembelaan - anggapan bertentangan (“adverse inference”) di bawah Seskyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai - Ketiadaan DNA Perayu pada dadah berbahaya yang ditemui tidak melemahkan kes pendakwaan - keterangan pembelaan yang bersifat penafian semata-mata tidak memadai dalam menimbulkan keraguan 2 Resulting trust - whether the deceased’s parents were holding the Properties on resulting trust - to determine whether this case falls under a resulting trust, it is incumbent upon this court to scrutinize the facts and evidence presented to examine the true intention of the Deceased when purchasing the Properties. 2 undang-undang tanah – pencerobohan tanah – perjanjian usahasama, Business Exit Agreement dan Consultancy Agreement (PU 2022, BEA, CA) – hak pengurusan, pengusahaan dan pemajuan (RMBD) – salah nyata dan penipuan – konflik kepentingan – lucut kelayakan peguamcara – bidang kuasa sedia ada mahkamah – lanjutan masa memfailkan pembelaan – penghakiman ingkar pembelaan – pindaan pembelaan dan tuntutan balas 2 CRIMINAL LAW/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evaluation of chain of circumstances – Whether circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain conviction – Whether cumulative effect of evidence leads to irresistible conclusion of guilt – Whether alternative hypotheses reasonably possible – Whether chain of circumstances complete and unbroken –Distinction between reasonable doubt and imaginary or speculative doubt 2 EVIDENCE: Witness credibility – Assessment by trial judge – Belated contradictory statements – Whether trial judge erred in finding witness credible – Statutory declaration and police report made after accused called to enter defence – Whether documentary evidence supersedes sworn oral testimony – Weight to be given to trial judge's observation of demeanour – Whether subsequent contradictory documents raise credibility issues –Suspicious timing of contradictory evidence – Whether afterthought or collusion 2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Recall of witnesses – Power under Section 425 of Criminal Procedure Code – Whether court erred in refusing to recall witness for cross-examination – Whether recall essential to just decision of case – Exercise of judicial discretion – Whether additional evidence admissible – Whether application made for improper tactical purposes –Whether refusal to recall witness violates right to fair trial under Article 5(1) Federal Constitution 2 EVIDENCE: Hearsay evidence – Whether witness testimony constitutes inadmissible hearsay – Distinction between hearsay and direct evidence of facts personally witnessed – Whether admission by accused admissible – Whether evidence of statement made to witness is hearsay or original evidence – Police report as first information report – Whether maker of statement called as witness negates hearsay objection – Failure to raise hearsay objection during trial 2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Investigative deficiencies – DNA testing on exhibits – Accuracy of crime scene sketch – Failure to investigate belated reports – Whether investigative deficiencies material – Whether deficiencies create reasonable doubt – Whether investigation thorough and adequate – Standard of investigation required 2 CRIMINAL LAW: Reasonable doubt – Burden and standard of proof at conclusion of defence case – Legal burden on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Evidential burden on accused to raise reasonable doubt – Whether defence narrative raises reasonable doubt even if disbelieved –Distinction between reasonable doubt and mere possible or imaginary doubt – Assessment of alternative hypotheses – Whether third-party involvement theory reasonably possible –Whether failure to put case to witnesses during cross-examination fatal to defence 2 SENTENCING: Grievous hurt to spouse – Domestic violence context – Section 325 read with Section 326A of Penal Code – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Legislative intent behind Section 326A enhancement –Consideration of gravity of offence, circumstances, deterrent effect and public interest – Whether appellate court should interfere with sentence – Consideration of victim impact evidence under Section 183A Criminal Procedure Code – Catastrophic and permanent injuries to victim – Whether sentence reflects seriousness of domestic violence offence – Balancing punishment, deterrence and reformation – Consideration of remand period and statutory maximum 2 Criminal Law — Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking — Possession — Accused charged with trafficking in methamphetamine and heroin and with possession of heroin and monoacetylmorphines — Drugs found partly on accused’s person and partly in dwelling house — Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of drugs — Constructive possession — Accused leading police to premises and location of drugs — Admissibility of information leading to discovery — Evidence Act 1950 s 27 — Relevance of conduct of accused — Evidence Act 1950 s 8 — Whether exclusive possession required — Joint possession — Presumption of trafficking — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 s 37(da) — Whether presumption rebutted on balance of probabilities — Defence of lack of knowledge and access by third parties — Chain of custody — Whether break in chain of evidence — Failure to adduce DNA evidence — Whether fatal to prosecution’s case — Whether prosecution established prima facie case at close of prosecution case — Criminal Procedure Code s 180. 2 Perbicaraan Jenayah - s. 39B(1)(a),s39A(1),s12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952- s. 9(1) Akta Racun 1952- Kedua-dua Tertuduh dilihat berjalan keluar dari kawasan rumah - kunci manga pintu pagar kecil dijumpai dalam beg Tertuduh Kedua - pintu hadapan Utama dibuka dengan jari telunjuk kanan Tertuduh Pertama - pintu bilik dibuka menggunakan satu kombinasi nombor pin oleh Tertuduh Pertama - Dadah dijumpai dalam laci, almari dan di bawah katil dalam bilik 2 Pembelaan - hari kejadian kali pertama Tertuduh Pertama pergi ke rumah dan tidak bermalam atau menghuni dalam bilik dadah dijumpai - pergi rumah untuk melepak dengan rakan Yap Tiang Joo yang merupakan penyewa bilik dadah dijumpai - Tertuduh Kedua berada di bilik nombor 7 bersama rakannya Alice (SD6)- mereka keluar untuk makan malam dan ditahan oleh polis di luar rumah - SD6 mengesahkan kedua-dua Tertudah tidak menyewa di bilik tersebut dan keterangan tidak dicabar oleh pendakwaan - tanggungjawab atas pendakwaan untuk menyanggah notis Alcontara - siasatan harus dijalankan mengenai pembelaan mengenai penglibatan Yap Tiang Joo - 2 Akhir pembelaan - wujudnya keraguan dan percanggahan - pembelaan berjaya mengakas anggapan dibawah s.37(da) dan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah - Kedua-dua Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan 2 Prima Facie case - Direct possession of the drugs - presumption under s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applied 2 Administrative Law - Judicial review - Dismissal of police officer - Whether the charge is duplicity and incomplete - Documents relevant for the charges to be given Administrative Law - Right to be heard - Oral representation Administrative Law - Compliance with regulation 35 and 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 Administrative Law - Failure to provide grounds of decision - Whether breach of natural justice Administrative Law - Doctrine of proportionality - Whether dismissal was harsh and unreasonable 2 CRIMINAL LAW: - 2 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Rayuan ke atas keputusan – Kesalahan dibawah seksyen 12(2)/39A(1) Akta 234 dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan – Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2)/39A(1) Akta 234 - Kesalahan dibawah seksyen 12(2)/12(3) Akta 234 - Kewujudan seorang penama yang dikenali sebagai “Shido” yang dikatakan penyewa sebenar rumah tersebut – Keterangan dengar cakap tidak boleh dibuat sandaran oleh Mahkamah – Sama ada kemungkinan OKT1 dan OKT2 akan diperangkap atau dianiaya – Sama ada dadah yang di jumpai dalam beg OKT1 adalah milik beliau – Sama ada OKT 1 mempunyai kawalan ke atas dadah-dadah yang dijumpai di dalam P43. 2 RAYUAN BAGI KES: KA-41S-4-06/2022 Rayuan Perayu 1 dan Perayu 2 adalah dibenarkan. Sabitan dan hukuman adalah diketepikan. 2 RAYUAN BAGI KES: KA-41S-5-06/2022 Rayuan Perayu 1 adalah ditolak. Sabitan dan hukuman adalah dikekalkan 2 "Rayuan ke atas sabitan dan hukuman - Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 [Akta 716] - sama ada pertuduhan-pertuduhan adalah satu kependuaan - sama ada elemen "menyimpan" telah dibuktikan - sama ada terdapat percanggahan di dalam keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan - sama ada siasatan adalah lengkap - sama ada hukuman adalah setimpal" 2 OKT telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan pilihan di bawah subseksyen 12(2)/39A(2) ADB 1952 dan juga bagi pertuduhan di bawah subseksyen 12(2)/29A(1) Akta yang sama. OKT mengetengahkan kebimbangan atas hukuman sebatan yang perlu dijalaninya kerana OKT pernah lumpuh dan Mahkamah telah memperjelaskan bahawa hukuman sebatan yang diperuntukkan adalah hukuman mandatori. Namun begitu, pelaksanaan sebatan adalah bergantung kepada keadaan kesihatan OKT dan laporan perubatan akan menentukan sama ada OKT boleh atau tidak menjalani hukuman sebatan tersebut. Namun begitu, pelaksanaan tersebut adalah di luar bidang kuasa Mahkamah. 2 "Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - tertuduh disabitkan - sama ada PR telah berjaya membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah - sama ada pembelaan berjaya membangkitkan keraguan" 2 "Sek 39B (1)(a) Akta 234 - OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - sama ada pihak PR telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie - sama ada kegagalan pegawai penyiasat menjalankan siasatan ke atas Akuan Sumpah di D21 menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - sama ada seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 berbangkit" 2 Pertuduhan bagi kesalahan memiliki dan mengedar dadah berbahaya terhadap 6 orang OKT yang ditahan di dalam sebuah rumah. Kesemua OKT sedang tidur semasa serbuan dijalankan dan dadah ditemui di ruangan tengah rumah. Penyewa asal rumah telah menyewa semula (sublet) kepada penama Zamani yang dikatakan telah menyewakan semula kepada OKT1 - OKT6. Tiada kunci rumah dirampas walaupun keterangan Pengadu mengatakan pintu hadapan rumah dibuka oleh OKT1 menggunakan kunci. Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes pendakwaan pada tahap prima facie dan OKT1 - OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 2 "Seksyen 39B Akta 234 - OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - sama ada pihak PR berjaya membuktikan rantaian keterangan barang kes - terdapat 2 versi di pihak pendakwaan - sama ada siasatan yang dijalankan adalah sempurna" 2 "Sek 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - akhir kes pendakwaan - sama ada pihak PR berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie - Sama ada identiti barang kes secara khususnya rantaian keterangan barang kes telah dibuktikan - Sama ada dadah-dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan OKT1 dan OKT2 - Kredibiliti siasatan oleh SP9" 2 PERBICARAAN JENAYAH: Bicara penuh –kesalahan seksyen 3 (1) Akta Culik 1961 dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan – suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 109 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama seksyen 3(1) Akta Culik 1961 - Kes Pendakwaan - Sama ada pertuduhan-pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas tertuduh-tertuduh adalah betul - Sama ada satu kes prima facie telah berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak PR - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh telah menahan SP1 dan SP6 secara salah - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh meminta wang tebusan - Sama ada elemen persubahatan Tertuduh 5 telah dibuktikan - pihak PR gagal membuktikan satu kes prima facie ke atas kesemua tertuduh – Kesemua tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada kesemua pertuduhan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 2 Tuntutan Plaintif dan tuntutan Defendan adalah berhubung tanah yang sama. Plaintif memohon milikan kosong tanah tersebut selaku pemillik berdaftar manakala Defendan mendakwa tanah itu dipegang oleh mendiang suami/ayah Plaintif bagi pihak ibu-bapa mereka. Isu untuk dibicarakan adalah sama ada tanah itu yang dipindahmilik kepada mendiang suami/ayah Plaintif untuk dipegangnya sebagai pemegang amanah untuk dirinya dan adik-adiknya dan sama ada tuntutan Defendan dihalang had masa. 2 Bicara penuh jenayah - satu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Merbahaya 1952 dan 2 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta yang sama. Pembelaan telah mengemukakan versi yang bertentangan dan ini menimbulkan kelompangan dari aspek siasatan polis. Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan elemen pemilikan melampaui keraguan munasabah. OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan. 2 OKT dihadapkan di Mahkamah atas 1 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya dan 2 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta yang sama. Pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie dan OKT telah dipanggil membela diri. Pembelaan OKT yang dikemukakan melalui kenyataan bertulis adalah "Saya, Mat Karim Bin Ariffin tidak buat apa-apa kesalahan seperti di dalam pertuduhan.” OKT berhujah pertuduhan-pertuduhan terhadapnya cacat berhubung tarikh kesalahan. Mahkamah telah meminda tarikh kesalahan berlandaskan keterangan dan dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh pendakwaan. OKT enggan memasukkan sebarang plea kepada pertuduhan terpinda tersebut mahupun mengemukakan sebarang keterangan untuk pembelaannya. Mahkamah mendapati pembelaan OKT tidak mampu mematahkan kes pendakwaan atas imbangan kebarangkalian. OKT didapati bersalah dan disabitkan kesalahan untuk ketiga-tiga pertuduhan terpinda. OKT dikenakan hukuman - (i) hukuman penjara penjara seumur hidup, dari tarikh tangkap dan dikenakan sebatan 15 kali; (ii) hukuman penjara penjara 5 tahun, dari tarikh tangkap dan dikenakan sebatan 10 kali; (iii) hukuman penjara penjara 2 tahun, dari tarikh tangkap dan dikenakan sebatan 3 kali. 2 Key Words 2 "Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 6 & 39B - Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua dituduh dengan kesalahan mengedar 1,003 gram Cannabis manakala Tertuduh Pertama bersorangan dituduh dengan kesalahan memiliki dadah berbahaya Cannabis seberat 196 gram 2 Di akhir kes Pendakwaan Mahkamah memutuskan pihak Pendakwaan hanya berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh Kedua di bawah pertuduhan Seksyen 39B ADB tetapi gagal melepaskan beban yang sama terhadap Tertuduh Pertama - Mahkamah mendapati hanya Tertuduh Kedua mempunyai milikan berdasarkan fakta bahawa hanya Tertuduh Kedua mempunyai penggunaan kereta sedangkan Tertuduh Pertama hanya penumpang - Untuk Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 6 ADB Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh Pertama 2 Section 340 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020) Act 828 - Registration to confer indefeasible title or interest, except in certain circumstances - Fraudulent Transfer - “immediate purchaser” - “subsequent purchaser” - bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration - Indefeasibility of Title - burden of proof had not been discharged - forged signature and fake land title - no concrete, compelling or cogent evidence of actual payment - the series of transactions were done in circumstances which does not vouch for its authenticity or credibility - burden of proof on a party to prove that cash payments were in fact made - Aggravated Damages - no plea in the Statement of Claim - deprived of the shield of indefeasibility per the Proviso to s.340(3) of the National Land Code 2 Contract — Illegality — Moneylending transaction — Sale and purchase agreements alleged to be sham — Whether agreements intended to disguise loan transaction — Whether contravened Moneylenders Act 1951 — Unlicensed moneylending — Effect of illegality — Whether agreements enforceable — Moneylenders Act 1951, ss 2, 5, 10OA, 15, 17A Contract — Illegality — Moneylending transaction — Sale and purchase agreements declared unenforceable — Effect on third-party claims — Whether plaintiff had beneficial interest in property — Moneylenders Act 1951, s 15 Contract — Privity of contract — Plaintiff not a party to sale and purchase agreement — Whether plaintiff entitled to assert rights against subsequent purchaser Contract — Sham agreements — Test — Intention of parties — Circumstantial evidence — Whether sale and purchase agreements were façade to camouflage illegal moneylending — Whether court entitled to lift veil and examine substance of transaction Appeal — Powers of appellate court — Failure of trial judge to address pleaded issue — Whether appellate court may determine issue not decided by trial court — Whether omission constitutes appealable error Equity — Beneficial interest — Whether illegal and void transaction capable of conferring equitable or beneficial rights Evidence — Presumption — Moneylenders Act 1951 — Presumption of moneylending — Burden of proof — Failure to rebut statutory presumption — Effect 2 Prosedur Jenayah — Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman — Tertuduh didakwa atas kesalahan membunuh dengan menyebabkan kematian di bawah s.302 KK dan juga dengan sengaja menyebabkan cedera parah di bawah s.326 KK — Pertuduhan s.302 KK, Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan selama 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan dan 12 sebatan - Pertuduhan s.326 KK, Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan selama 8 tahun dan 5 sebatan dan hukuman pemenjaraan ini bermula setelah Tertuduh selesai menjalani hukuman bagi kesalahan s.302 KK — Sama ada keterangan saksi pendakwaan dan pembelaan telah dipertimbangkan secukupnya oleh hakim perbicaraan 2 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - milikan (possession) atau kawalan (custody) dan pengetahuan (knowledge) - pemilikan sebenar (actual possession) – exclusive possession - transporting or carrying - Seksyen 8(2) Akta Keterangan 1950 - kelakuan (conduct) tertuduh semasa ditangkap - niat bersama untuk mengedar 2 Kedua-dua notis rayuan ini bertitik tolak daripada satu kes kemalangan jalan raya yang berlaku di KM 28 Jalan Tampin – Gemas, di mana motokar yang dinaiki oleh Plaintif Pertama (dalam tindakan asal) dan dipandu oleh simati telah terlibat dalam satu kemalangan jalan raya. Akibat kemalangan tersebut, si mati telah meninggal dunia dan Plaintif pertama mengalami kecederaan serius. Plaintif-Plaintif mendakwa kemalangan berlaku apabila motokar tersebut melanggar satu lubang/pecahan yang terdapat pada permukaan jalan raya di laluan tersebut. Lubang tersebut dikatakan terhasil akibat kebocoran paip air yang terdapat di bawah permukaan jalan. Paip air berkenaan adalah dibawah penyelenggaraan dan kawalan Defendan pertama, Sains (dalam tindakan asal). 2 Applicant is a licensed manufacturing warehouse (LMW) under sections 65 and 65A of the Customs Act 1967(the Act) - The dispute centred around the deliveries of raw materials from the Applicant's warehouse to two(2) other LMW companies, namely Sykt Sim Kwang Plastic lndustries sdn bhd and Wentel Corporation sdn bhd - Whether the said deliveries can be considered as the Applicant's export quota and not to be subject to any GST and/or import duty - Whether the Respondents have the power to impose duties on the said deliveries on account of a breach of the LMW license - Whether compliance with documentation is central to the regulation of LMW - Whether the usage of the wrong form i.e Form 9 as opposed to LMW Form, would justify the imposition of import duty - Whether the decision of the Respondents to impose tax or the non- remission was irrational and went against the spirit and intent of the law -Whether the Bills of Demand issued by the 2nd Respondent are valid under the law. 2 The appeals arose from a High Court judgment in a land fraud case. The High Court found against Lee Chee Boon, Tang Ser Chiew, John Henry Louis, and Messrs. John & Associates (Appeal No. 481), as well as the Land Registry and its relevant officers (Appeal No. 480), for their involvement in the fraudulent transfer of land belonging to Hee Yan Choong to Ooh Tong Hai and Goh Hui Li. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s findings, holding the Land Registry negligent and Lee, Tang, John, and John & Associates complicit in the fraudulent transaction. 2 The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision finding Goh Choon Kim, Ong Ah Poh, Goh Choon Seang, and Goh Kim Heong guilty of contempt for breaching an injunction order that prohibited interference with the management and affairs of Global Tobacco Manufacturers (GTM). Their actions, including issuing termination letters and convening an EGM, were found to preempt the resolution of an ongoing suit. The court reaffirmed that disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt without requiring proof of interference with the administration of justice. The appeal against their conviction was dismissed, while the acquittal of Goh Kooi Cheng was upheld. 2 Contracts -Form of Agreement - Letter of Award- Scope of Works-General Conditions of Contract- Liquidated and Ascertained Damages- was time the essence of the Contract-whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in this case-what was/were the cause(s) for the Defendant’s Delay-could the Plaintiff claim LAD from the Defendant-the effect of ss 56, 74(1) and 75 CA in this case. 2 The appeals involved late delivery of vacant possession of the Jazz Suites and claims for GST and late payment interest of the sales and purchases of the commercial accommodation suites. The key issue was whether the Purchasers could rely on Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA). The Court held that despite the land's commercial zoning, the Jazz Suites were for human habitation and fell under the HDA. Thus, Schedule H applied, and inconsistent terms in the sale agreements were void. The Purchasers’ appeals were allowed as the High Court had erred. 2 Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Pengedaran dan pemilikan dadah berbahaya – Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Pembelaan Perayu Kedua yang mengesahkan Perayu Pertama tidak tinggal di premis – Sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan milikan/pengetahuan Perayu Pertama – Sama ada YA PK telah khilaf dan gagal untuk membangkitkan anggapan bertentangan di bawah s.114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 – Kegagalan memangil saksi material – Kewujudan DNA individu lain di dalam rumah tempat kejadian – Sama ada Perayu-perayu telah diprejudiskan dengan ketidakmampuan terang-terangan peguambela Perayu-perayu semasa perbicaraan di Mahkamah Tinggi 2 6. Our Federal Court, in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67 (FC); [2020] 8 AMR 227; [2020] 10 CLJ 1; [2020] 6 MLRA 193, comprehensively expounded the genesis of the “plainly wrong” principle, through its development over the years, into its current meaning. 2 7. Ng Hoo Kui (supra) propounded that the primary “plainly wrong” principle includes the following not-exhaustive elaborative tenets, and I apply them here— 2 (2) This phrase of the “lack of judicial appreciation of the evidence” encompasses these three errors— 2 (i) critical factual finding which has no basis in evidence (that is, findings not based on the evidence); 2 (ii) demonstrable misunderstanding of the relevant evidence (that is, misunderstanding the evidence); 2 (iii) demonstrable failure to consider the relevant evidence (that is, failure to consider the evidence). 2 Summary judgment – Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Claim by bank against borrower (company) and guarantors (directors) – Whether material facts were not pleaded in the statement of claim – Whether the plaintiff concealed facts in the statement of claim – Whether the defendants have a defence on merit – Whether manifest error in the certificate of indebtedness. 2 The injunction application is dismissed with costs. 2 Plaintiff sues for defendants to be passed over as executors of their mother’s estate – Defendants named as executors under the deceased mother’s Will – Plaintiff is a beneficiary under the Will – Whether special circumstances exist to pass over defendants as the executors of the estate – Whether plaintiff can be appointed as the sole executor – Whether defendants have delayed in applying for probate – Whether defendants have breached their fiduciary duties – Whether plaintiff entitled to withdraw monies from joint accounts with deceased based on survivorship clause. 2 1. The Defendant is a politician. He held a press conference. He invited the media to come to his press conference. He talked about the Plaintiff. P is a well-known politician. A press statement about the press conference was emailed out to various persons in the media. 2 2. A media journalist attended the press conference. She wrote an article about what D said at the press conference. It was published in both print and online forms. 2 3. P sued D and the media for libel, for the allegedly defamatory words and statements in the press statement and the media article. 2 4. Should P succeed in his cause for libel? In other words, does D and the meida have defences to P’s suits for defamation? 2 Whether the original purchasers (1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents) or the subsequent purchaser (Bayu Sempurna Sdn Bhd) of the subject properties has better title - developer/1st Defendant in liquidation - constructive trusts - whether purchase price must be paid in full - laches - limitation - cross-appeals. 2 Main issue: Whether the 1st and 2nd respondent had wilfully, deliberately disobeying or disregarding the terms of the injunction order of the court - The respondents had provided strong reason why they did not allow the applicant the use of the access road - Intention or mens rea is not an essential ingredient for the purpose of finding a person guilty of contempt of court in general - Whether or not the respondents had the intention of committing contempt is to be determined by reference to all the facts and circumstances of the case - The conduct of the respondents falls far short of wilfully or deliberately disobeying or disregarding to comply with the terms of the Interim Injunction 2 Appeal against sentence - 304(a) Penal Code - Three accused charge with offence - Whether mitigating factors individually assessed? - Whether sentencing trend considered? 2 Criminal law - Both Accused were separately charged with the smuggling of migrants under section 26A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons And Anti-Smuggling of Migrants(ATIPSOM) Act 2007 - Prosecution had established a prima facie case against both the Accused - The learned High Court Judge(HCJ) had ordered both the Accused to enter their defence - Both the Accused were found guilty and sentence to a term of imprisonment of 8 years - Both the Accused appealed against the decision of the learned HCJ - There is no merit in all the grounds of appeal raised by both the Accused - The conviction and sentenced imposed by the learned HCJ are hereby affirmed. 2 Originating summons – extension of time – Form N, section 38(1) Land Acquisition Act 1960 – reference to High Court – Form D – Compensation for the acquisition of land – objection – enquiry – exceeded the statutory time limit – special circumstances - discretion 2 An oral agreement made gratuitously and without consideration is legally unenforceable. Overpayments made by mistake are recoverable where cogently proven, and appellate intervention is justified where the trial judge’s decision is tainted by material misdirection or a failure to consider relevant evidence. 2 Seksyen 471 Kanun Keseksaan - Using as genuine a forged document - Seksyen 464 Kanun Keseksaan - Making a false document - Seksyen 465 Kanun Keseksaan - Punishment for forgery - Seksyen 24 Kanun Keseksaan - “Dishonestly" - pertuduhan pilihan adalah cacat dan tidak sah kerana tidak menyatakan secara spesifik bilakah tarikh kesalahan tersebut dilakukan - seksyen 153 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - seksyen 26 Kanun Keseksaan - “Reason to believe" - pertuduhan tersebut adalah jelas dan dan teratur - kesalahan yang berlaku pada bulan September tahun 2016 tidak menimbulkan sebarang kekeliruan di pihak perayu - ketiadaan Izin Untuk Mendakwa di bawah seksyen 58 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (Undang-Undang Malaysia Akta 694) - Pendakwaan kesalahan - seksyen 18 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - seksyen 24 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 – kesalahan dibawah seksyen 471/465 Kanun Keseksaan - tiada keperluan undang-undang untuk pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan Izin Untuk Mendakwa bagi kesalahan ini - keizinan tersirat (implicit consent) daripada pendakwa raya kerana timbalan pendakwa raya adalah alter ego kepada pendakwa raya - seksyen 376(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - seksyen 162 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Recall of witnesses when charge altered – tidak wujud salah laksana keadilan (miscarriage of justice) - Perkara 5(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - seksyen 158 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Court may alter or add to charge - seksyen 159 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - When trial may proceed immediately after alteration or addition - tiada apa-apa kecacatan pada pertuduhan - faktor pemberatan kepentingan awam 2 Judicial Review – Military law – Court-martial – Convening authority – Whether convening officer possessed requisite command power – Temporary attachment of accused to Legal Branch – Whether accused was “under command” within meaning of s 104(4) Armed Forces Act 1972 – Delegation of power – Whether lack of command renders proceedings void ab initio – Effect of jurisdictional defect – Armed Forces Act 1972, s 104 – Federal Constitution, arts 5(1), 8(1), 137(1). 2 Military law – Court-martial – Drug offence – Positive urine test – Alleged non-compliance with PMAT 4/2009 – Use of non-prescribed forms – Absence of Donor’s Declaration – Whether procedural irregularities vitiate proceedings – Chain of custody – Role of chemist – Whether failure to produce calibration certificate fatal – Armed Forces Act 1972, ss 51, 87 – Evidence Act 1950, s 90A. 2 Military law – Standing orders – Proof of existence and validity – Whether standing order duly made and published under s 51(3) Armed Forces Act 1972 – Whether accused knew or ought to have known of prohibition – Presumption of knowledge – Ignorance of standing orders – Whether Division One Order relevant to proof of knowledge. 2 Military law – Court-martial procedure – Recording of finding – Whether announcement of “guilty” sufficient compliance with r 82 and Seventh Schedule Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 – Whether omission to use word “conviction” fatal. 2 Military law – Confirmation proceedings – Duty of confirming officer – Whether confirming officer obliged to review full trial record – Failure to file petition against finding – Scope of powers under ss 122, 123, 125 Armed Forces Act 1972 – Whether confirmation invalid. 2 Judicial Review – Scope – Military tribunals – Distinction between appeal and review – Whether High Court may re-evaluate evidence – Exceptional circumstances – Jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice – Discretionary relief. 2 Judicial Review - dismissal without just cause or excuse - representations were referred to the Industrial Court pursuant to s.20(3) of the Act. . 2 - Whether s.29(a) can be used to substitute or join a non-employer entity. 2 - Whether the Industrial Court can disregard separate legal personality to secure employee remedies. 2 -Whether corporate group relationships justify joinder/substitution. 2 -Limits of equitable jurisdiction under s.30(5) vis-à-vis Salomon principle. 2 -Conflict between industrial justice and corporate law orthodoxy. 2 -Permissibility of extending liability beyond the employer. 2 -Effect of employer’s insolvency on employee rights. 2 Land Acquisition — Late payment charges — Sections 32 and 48 Land Acquisition Act 1960 — Early entry by concessionaire — Physical possession prior to gazettement — Mandatory late payment charges under s. 32 — Applicable interest rate — Amendment to Land Acquisition Act 1960 — Compensation for early entry — Rental award — Whether rental award sustainable in law — Injurious affection — Compensation for remaining land — Whether compensation awarded by High Court constitutes “excess” — Applicability of s. 48 — Computation of late payment charges — Date of formal possession. 2 Arrest and detention-Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012-Sections 124K and L Penal Code-Unlawful detention -Malicious prosecution- Damages 2 whether the court is mandatorily required by the second rule of natural justice to give parties an oral hearing when written submissions had already been filed - if the answer to the question in the above sub-paragraph (1) is in the positive, what is the effect on the court’s decision due to a breach of the second rule of natural justice? - how should the Winding Up Court (WU Court) exercise its discretionary power under - s 492(1) of the Companies Act 2016 [CA (2016)] to stay all proceedings in relation to the winding up of a company (WU Proceedings) which has been previously wound up by the WU Court - s 493(1) CA to terminate the WU Proceedings? 2 Arbitrator’s authority under Section 21(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 and expertise to analyze evidence without breaching natural justice. 2 Building and Construction Law — Construction contract — Adjudication — Claimant sought to enforce adjudication decision (“AD”) — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) — s 28 — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 2 Building and Construction Law — Construction contract — Adjudication — Respondent sought to set aside AD — CIPAA — s 15 — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 2 Civil Procedure — Parties— Proper parties to be sued — Whether proper to sue sole proprietor in his own name and to add below the name within brackets the name of the firm — Whether respondent was properly named at the adjudication proceedings — Whether action can be taken against a body that has no legal status — Whether the Adjudicator is clothed with the jurisdiction — Whether adjudication proceedings valid 2 Arbitration – Arbitration Act 2005 (“AA”) – Award – Recognition and enforcement of award 2 Arbitration – Respondent was allegedly in breach of express and implied terms of contract in respect of supply of cost-plus valves and that Appellant suffered substantial loss and damages – Whether respondent was in breach of express terms of contract – Whether valves supplied did not correspond with its description and were not of merchantable quality – Whether Appellant suffered substantial loss and damage in respect of valves which had been replaced 2 Arbitration - Whether breach of rules of natural justice occurred during arbitration and in connection with making award — Arbitral Tribunal addressed on issue not raised or addressed by parties — Tribunal failed to address issues specifically raised in the pleadings by the parties — Whether breach of natural justice — Whether award was in conflict with public policy of Malaysia 2 Application to set aside - Order 29 rule 1 and Order 32 rule 6 and/or Order 42 rule 13 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 - Ex-Parte Order - section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 - Performance Bond - application for an interim measure - security for costs – Issue: Whether the Appellant’s demand on the Performance Bond is unconscionable? 2 Application to recuse the High Court Judge - Application for leave to intervene – Application to expunge parts of the High Court Judge’s Judgment - a short audio-video clip was widely circulated - a brief snippet of trial - the Learned HCJ had written the Impugned Judgment concerning the Video Clip - Order 15 Rule 6 (2) (b) (i) and/or (ii) of the Rules of Court 2012 - Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 – whether decisions is appealable to the Court of Appeal - definition of a “decision” under Section 3 of the CJA 1964 and Section 67(1) of the CJA 1964 - discretionary judgment - the Impugned Judgment was written to clarify the sequence of events - whether the Impugned Judgment was necessary - whether the order was made “in the course of a trial” - whether it “disposes of the rights” of the parties in the main suits. 2 Contempt of court – Implied undertaking (Riddick principle) – Use of documents obtained under compulsion – Whether undertaking survives once documents are filed, marked and read in open court – Public documents – Related proceedings – Whether leave of court required – Grant of leave to commence committal proceedings – Appealability of leave order – Whether appeals are academic or premature – Res judicata and issue estoppel – Proper scope and application of Harman v Secretary of State – Malaysian position. 2 Patents and inventions; product claim and process claim; mobile offshore production unit; infringement of patent; invalidation of patent; prior art, lack of industrial applicability; lack of of inventive step; whether subsequent infringer bound by previous litigation on grounds res judicata and estoppel; privity of interest 2 Breach of financing agreement-The issue of Gharar- “Tawarruq” concept of Shariah banking system- Shariah principles- Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 2 These were related appeals involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information. The Respondent, Flowbird (formerly known as Cale Malaysia Sdn Bhd), alleged that its former employees, Alain Taher Osterlind and Rafizuddin, had disclosed its confidential information to IEM, a Swiss-incorporated company engaged in a similar business. The information was allegedly used by IEM to secure parking solution projects in New Zealand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The learned Judicial Commissioner found in favour of Flowbird. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the High Court, holding that the evidence established the misuse of confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty by Rafizuddin and IEM. 2 Estate Agency agreement; registered estate agent; estate agency fee; Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 (Act 242); Valuers, Appraisers, rule 92(1) of the Estate Agents Rules 1986 (PU(A) 64/1986); effective cause of sale. 2 MAJORITY KEYWORDS Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952- OKT dan seorang lagi dituduh dengan empat pertuduhan- Di akhir kes pendakwaan- YA HMT mendapati pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie untuk semua pertuduhan- OKT-OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan- TPR merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan. Di Mahkamah Rayuan- Majoriti hakim (YA Dato’ Che Mohd Ruzima dan YA Datuk Dr. Choo Kah Sing) menolak rayuan TPR- manakala (YA Dato’Azmi) penghakiman bertentangan Alasan menolak rayuan: Wujud kelompangan dalam kes Pihak Pendakwaan yang boleh menyebabkan timbulnya keraguan berhubung dengan usaha Pihak Pendakwaan membuktikan responden memiliki dadah-dadah berbahaya bagi kesemua keempat-empat pertuduhan. Antara isu ialah berkaitan : (1) kelompangan dalam keterangan SP2 berkaitan dengan kejadian di bilik utama rumah tersebut; (2) keterangan SP2 dan SP3 yang boleh membangkitkan inferens bertentangan atau kemungkinan lain yang boleh timbul berkaitan dengan isu pemilikan dadah-dadah berbahaya yang ditemui di bilik utama; (3)kewujudan sebuah beg misteri berwarna merah jambu (beg merah jambu) dan Pihak Pendakwan gagal menanyakan SP2 mengenai perkara yang berkait daripada kewujudan beg merah jambu tersebut semasa disoal semula. 2 Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Appeals against conviction and sentence — Both accused were charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs — an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - punishable under s 39B (2) of the Act – Both accused were sentenced to life’s imprisonment from the date of arrest and 15 strokes of rotan —Whether defense sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — Whether there was a break in chain of evidence — Whether discrepancies affected credibility of witness — Whether appellate interference warranted — Whether conviction and sentence safe — Criminal Procedure Code s 180(1). 2 Seksyen 109 Kanun Keseksaan [Akta 574] yang dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 409 Kanun yang sama – persubahatan - seksyen 422 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah - kegagalan mengemukakan keterangan dokumentar meruntuhkan kes pendakwaan - failure to produce crucial minutes of Board meeting and audio recordings 2 1. The learned Magistrate had allowed the application of the Defendant to set aside the ex parte leave for a committal proceeding applied for by the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant. 2 2. In deciding that the 1st Defendant had successfully set aside the ex parte application for leave for the committal proceeding the learned Magistrate decided Plaintiff’s application for a committal proceeding was therefore rendered academic. 2 3. The Plaintiff now appeals against both this decision of the learned Magistrate. 2 19. In the upshot the Court dismissed both the appeals by the Plaintiff against the learned Magistrate’s decision with a cost of RM3,000. 2 Civil Procedure — Appeal — Appeal against summary judgment — Appeal against striking out of counterclaim — Applicable appellate standard — Whether re-hearing or review of discretion — Whether genuine triable issue raised — Distinction between limbs under O 18 r 19(1) Rules of Court 2012 — Sub-paragraph (a) confined to defects on the face of pleadings — Prohibition on affidavit evidence under O 18 r 19(2) for sub-paragraph (a) — Scope of sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) — Whether counterclaim for fraud and misrepresentation properly struck out under sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) — Lack of material particulars — Whether counterclaim obviously unsustainable — Rules of Court 2012, O.14 r.1 & r.3, & O.8 r.19. 2 Contract — Guarantee — Guarantee Service Provider scheme under Kafalah contract — Concurrent rights of bank against customer and guarantee service provider — Corporate Guarantee’s right of subrogation and right of recourse — Whether bank entitled to recover from either or both — Whether defendant ultimately liable — Contracts Act 1950, s.77, s.78, s.79, & s.81. 2 Water Services Industry (Sewerage Capital Contribution Fund) Regulations 2011 – interpretation of “selling price” – distinction between sold and unsold units – KPKT price for unsold units – whether KPKT price is interim or binding – Regulation 2, 3, 4 and 5 – lump sum payment before final inspection Limitation Act 1953 – section 6(1)(d) – statutory debt recovery – accrual of cause of action – discoverability principle – section 6A inapplicable to statutory claim – unpleaded negligence – cause of action accrues when full unredacted documentation provided. Order 14A Rules of Court 2012 (RC) – summary determination – suitability – requirement of undisputed material facts – complex factual disputes argued –suitable as facts largely undisputed – legal questions determinative Refund mechanism under Regulation 5 – only applicable for overpayments – no retrospective adjustment based on subsequent sales – Defendant never sought refund – argument of provisional KPKT price rejected Estoppel – Defendant’s undertakings in SCC Form K-1 – duty to provide accurate and complete information – delay and redaction of documents hindered verification – conduct estopping reliance on limitation defence Procedural issues – Counterclaim under Order 15 RC – distinct from main claim – alleged failure to adjudicate separately – no prejudice – dismissal of counterclaim upheld Statutory interpretation principles – literal vs purposive approach – clear and unambiguous wording –plain and ordinary meaning 2 [1] Ini merupakan rayuan oleh Perayu atas keputusan di Mahkamah Sesyen selepas perbicaraan penuh. Selain itu, Responden-responden turut memfailkan Rayuan balas. 2 [2] Bagi memudahkan rujukan, pihak-pihak akan dirujuk sebagaimana di Mahkamah Sesyen. Perayu merupakan Defendan dan Responden-Responden merupakan Plaintif-Plaintif dalam tuntutan asal di Mahkamah Sesyen. 2 [3] Defendan ialah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di Malaysia (Nombor Pendaftaran Syarikat: 199901011171 [486071-X]) dan merupakan pemaju projek pembangunan perumahan. 2 [4] Mahkamah ini setelah meneliti hujahan pihak-pihak dan dokumen rayuan mendapati bahawa HMS tidak terkhilaf di sisi undang-undang dan/atau fakta-fakta apabila memutuskan untuk membenarkan LAD tambahan bagi parsel dan kemudahan bersama walaupun pihak-pihak telah menandatangani Perjanjian Penyelesaian. 2 [5] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa rayuan Perayu ditolak dengan kos dan rayuan balas Responden-responden dibenarkan dengan kos. 2 There are no valid reasons to disturb the Award by the Land Administrator for Land and Building - the Applicant’s contention on the Land Replacement Costs, she herself acknowledged that these Costs have not materialised and are merely estimates and hence, there is no evidence of the actual costs incurred - there is no valid basis for the Court to allow the Land Replacement Costs as claimed. 2 Civil procedure – Banking and Finance — Islamic banking — Summary judgment — Recovery of outstanding sums under Murabahah term financing, Cashline-i and Tradeline-i facilities – Whether genuine triable issues raised – Defence based on non-receipt of demand letter – Whether the claim is premature – Whether proceedings must first be taken against the principal borrower before recourse to the guarantors – Guarantee and Indemnity – Whether certificate of indebtedness conclusive – Whether service of certificate upon defendants a precondition –Whether defendants have proven manifest error – Principal liability clause – Indemnity clause – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, & 3. 2 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery – Specific discovery of listed documents - Whether documents were specifically identified and shown to exist – Whether information in abstract constitutes document – Fishing expedition – Attempt to shift burden of proof – Whether discovery necessary – Discovery application dismissed 2 FRAUD: Impeachment of consent order – Consent order procured by conscious and deliberate concealment of material facts – Setting aside judgment on ground of fraud – Whether test for fraud requires proof of conscious and deliberate dishonesty – Whether constructive fraud or mere unconscionability sufficient – Whether concealed facts must be material in the sense their disclosure would have fundamentally altered the manner in which the court approached and decided the matter – Whether applicant who personally approved and benefited from impugned transactions could conceal such involvement and seek to challenge those same transactions – Whether consent order entered bilaterally between applicant and statutory body without participation of affected parties could stand – Whether fraud vitiates judgments, agreements and transactions – Applicability of 'fraud unravels everything' principle – Whether fresh action to impeach judgment obtained by fraud barred by res judicata 2 COMPANY LAW: Register of members – Rectification of register – Appeal under s 602(4) Companies Act 2016 against Registrar's refusal to rectify – Whether consent order directing Registrar to reconsider rectification application affects proprietary rights of shareholders – Whether company whose register is subject of rectification application is a necessary party – Whether Registrar entitled to know full facts when making decisions about exercise of discretionary powers – Whether consent order merely procedural or dispositive of parties' rights 2 CONTRACT LAW: Champerty and maintenance – Champertous agreements void as contrary to public policy – Whether Declaration of Trust, Power of Attorney and Agreement for Shares constitute champertous arrangements – s 24(e) Contracts Act 1950 – Whether person with no pre-existing legitimate interest in litigation agreeing to assist party in return for share of proceeds constitutes champerty – Whether interest derived solely from impugned champertous agreements could confer legitimate standing – Whether circularity of deriving standing from agreement whose validity is in question – Whether stranger to company with no shareholding, directorship or creditor relationship has independent legitimate interest – Whether champertous agreements void by operation of law without need for formal declaration – Whether proceedings instituted pursuant to champertous arrangements liable to be set aside – Whether finding of no conspiracy in separate proceedings precludes finding of champerty – Whether arrangement designed to enable party to obtain indirectly what failed to obtain through dismissed litigation 2 NATURAL JUSTICE: Breach of audi alteram partem principle – Deliberate exclusion of interested parties from proceedings – Whether party whose proprietary rights may be affected entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard – Whether consent order obtained in breach of natural justice is a nullity – Whether affected party entitled to have order set aside ex debito justitiae – Whether right to be heard applicable where rectification of register of members would fundamentally alter shareholding structure – Whether opportunity to participate at subsequent administrative stage cures exclusion from court proceedings in which order was obtained – Whether bilateral consent order binding on parties who were not party to it and had no knowledge of it 2 ABUSE OF PROCESS: Multiplicity of proceedings – Whether filing of successive proceedings based on substantially similar allegations regarding same underlying transactions constitutes abuse of process – Whether repeated attempts to relitigate matters determined adversely in prior proceedings amounts to collateral attack – Whether litigation pursued not for vindication of rights but for commercial benefit of intermeddler – Whether cumulative effect of excluding interested parties, concealing mater 2 Contract — Guarantee — Liability of guarantor — Guarantors claimed that they did not allegedly agree to guarantee the performance of the First Defendant’s obligation to pay any sums outstanding but had only promised that the First Defendant will comply with the terms of the agreement — Whether the Guarantors are discharge of their obligations — Letter of comfort 2 (3) This rule shall, as far as applicable, apply to an originating summons as if it were a pleading. 2 1.1 The case involves the veracity of contractual payments (CSAA - dated 12.12.2012) between the parties. 1.2 These suits were consolidatied and heard together. 1.3 On 23.01.2025, after full trial I find as follows: (i) Suit 215, I ruled in their favour and entered a final judgment against the defendants. (ii) In Suit 227, I find no merits in fact or law in Suit 227, and dismissed it with costs. 2 KATA KUNCI 2 Whether the Plaintiffs used the correct mode of proceedings to challenge the extension of time (‘EoT’) granted to the Defendant vide the 29.6.2018 Letter - If the answer to Question 1 is negative, whether the Plaintiffs’ claim ought to be dismissed Whether the present claim is limited to LAD or challenging the amended Clauses in the SPA which are alleged to have contradicted Schedule H of the HDR 1989 2 Abstract and Keywords 2 2. Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules states as follows: 2 (1) Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Court may, at any time after the commencement of proceedings, of its own motion, direct any party or parties to the proceedings to appear before the Court, in order that the Court may make such order or give such direction as it thinks fit so that- 2 (b) such directions may be given as to the future course of the action as appear best adapted to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal thereof. 2 Consolidation of Suits Rules of Court 2012 Order 4 Rule 1 Order 34 Rule 1 Transfer and Severance of Suits Common Legal Representation Abuse of Process Judicial Discretion Case Management High Court of Malaya Procedural Justice Overriding Interest of Justice Inherent Powers of the Court Costs and Efficiency in Litigation Case Law References: Federal Land Development Authority v. Tan Sri Hj Mohd Isa, Kumpulan Emas Bhd v. Dato' Lim Teng Lew, Multiglow Corporation Sdn. Bhd. v. SCG Consultants Sdn. Bhd., and others 2 This case concerns cross-applications under CIPAA 2012, where Greencon sought to enforce an adjudication decision under section 28, while Exyte sought to set it aside under sections 15(b) and 15(d) and to obtain a stay under section 16(1)(b). The Court held there were no jurisdictional errors or breaches of natural justice and no “special circumstances” to justify a stay, dismissing Exyte’s challenge and allowing enforcement of the adjudication decision. 2 These two Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 23.1.2025 that Basics Decor Sdn Bhd obtained against Ventura International Sdn Bhd under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012. Ventura International is applying to set aside and to stay the Adjudication Decision while Basics Decor is applying under section 28 of the Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision against Ventura International. 2 Enclosure 1. CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication decision – Application for stay under s.16 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – Discretionary nature of stay – Parallel court proceedings as threshold but not determinative – Whether “clear and unequivocal error” established so as to prick the conscience of the court – Whether stay may be granted under s.16(1)(b) in absence of application to set aside under s.15 CIPAA – Whether merits-based challenge is permissible at stay and enforcement stage – Balance of convenience and special circumstances – “Pay now, argue later” principle – Enforcement of adjudication decision under s.28 CIPAA as order of court 2 This case concerns an Originating Summons arising from an adjudication decision under the CIPAA 2012 (“CIPAA”). The main legal issue was whether the adjudication decision should be set aside under s 15, in particular for alleged excess of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice. The High Court held that the adjudicator had acted within his jurisdiction and complied with natural justice, dismissed the setting-aside application, and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision pursuant to s 28 of CIPAA. 2 Applying under sections 15(b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act, 2012 (“Act”) to set aside an Adjudication Decision. Application allowed/dismissed. 2 CIPAA. Originating Summons. Enforce Adjudication Decision. Setting Aside Adjudication Decision. Enforcement Adjudication Decision Allowed. Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Dismissed. 2 Enclosure 1. Enclosure 1. CONSTRUCTION LAW – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – Adjudication decision – Application to set aside – Section 15(b) CIPAA – Alleged denial of natural justice – Scope of court’s supervisory jurisdiction – Distinction between procedural fairness and merits review – Failure to consider submissions – Presumption that adjudicator considered all materials – Materiality of alleged breach – Whether adjudicator required to address every argument or evidence – Whether alleged errors of fact, law or contractual interpretation are grounds for setting aside – 2 Two Originating Summons to be heard together which one is to set aside an Adjudication Decision and another is to invoke section 28 of the CIPAA Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 5.10.2024. 2 Two Originating Summons to be heard together which one is to set aside an Adjudication Decision and another is to invoke section 28 of the CIPAA Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 26.11.2024. 2 Enclosure 1 . In Originating Summons No. WA-24C-22-01/2025 (OS 22), Setia Utama LRT3 Sdn Bhd (“SULSB”) had applied to this Court under enclosure 1 (Enclosure 1) to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 6.1.2025 (“AD”) given in favour of Siemens Mobility Sdn Bhd (“SMSB”), Siemens Mobility GMBH (“SGMBH”) and Rasma Corporation Sdn Bhd (“RC”) who are collectively an unincorporated association (Consortium) pursuant to sections 15 (b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment an Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA 2012). SULSB has also applied under this OS 22 in Enclosure 27 for a stay application (Enclosure 27) pending Enclosure 1 being disposed. On the other hand, Originating Summons No. WA-24C-28-02/2025 (OS 28) is in turn an application for the enforcement of the AD by the Consortium in accordance with section 28 CIPAA. 2 Two Originating Summons to be heard together in which, one is to set aside an Adjudication Decision and another is to invoke section 28 of the CIPAA Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 19.8.2024. The other applications are for stay that Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of a civil suit filed in Kuala Lumpur High Court and application under Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court, 2012 for discovery of documents. 2 These two Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 9.4.2025 that Menta Construction Sdn Bhd obtained against Zenith Development Sdn Bhd where the Zenith Development is applying to set aside the said Adjudication Decision and to stay the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision pending the disposal of the Originating Summon while Menta Construction is applying under section 28 of the CIPAA Act, 2012 to enforce the Adjudication Decision. 2 keywords: 2 Construction Law — Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and 2 Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside, stay and enforcement of adjudication 2 decisions —Whether breach of natural justice principle occurred – Whether the adjudicator denied the respondent from responding to issues allegedly raised during adjudication proceedings 2 — Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction - the High Court held that the adjudicator had acted within his jurisdiction and complied with natural justice, dismissed the setting-aside and stay application pending disposal of the civil trial, and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision pursuant to s 28 of CIPAA. 2 This is a Grounds of Judgement of both application to enforce the Adjudication Decision against Kerjaya Prospek under section 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 and application to set aside the Adjudication Decision under section 15(b) and/or 15(d) of the Act. 2 These two Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 9.4.2025 that Kota Kaybina Sdn Bhd obtained against FGM Engineering Sdn Bhd where the FGM is applying to set aside the said Adjudication Decision while Kota Kaybina is applying under section 28 of the CIPAA Act, 2012 to enforce the Adjudication Decision. 2 These three Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 17.12.2024 that Menta Construction Sdn Bhd obtained against Widad (M) Sdn Bhd under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012. Widad is applying to set aside and to stay the Adjudication Decision while Menta is applying under section 28 of the Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision against Widad. 2 An Originating Summons for the application of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 2005 to, inter alia, set the Final Award aside and an application under Section 38 of the Act to enforce the Final Award against the Applicant. 2 These two Originating Summons are connected by a Final Award delivered on 27.11.2024 that resulted in Must Ehsan Development Sdn Bhd's favour. Bumimetro Contsruction is applying to set the Final Award aside while Must Ehsan Development is applying under section 38 of the Arbitration Act, 2005 for the Final Award be recognized as binding and be enforced by entry as judgement in terms of the award. 2 This case concerns an arbitration arising from a construction dispute, involving issues of extension of time, liquidated ascertained damages, and alleged breaches of natural justice. Al-Ambia Sdn Bhd sought to set aside the arbitral award, while Urban Hallmark Properties Sdn Bhd applied to enforce it. The High Court dismissed the setting-aside application, emphasising minimal judicial interference, party autonomy, and the enforcement of arbitral awards as of right under the Arbitration Act 2005. 2 CONSTRUCTION LAW – Arbitration – Setting aside of arbitral award – Application under s 37 of Arbitration Act 2005– Alleged breach of natural justice – Whether arbitrator failed to consider material submissions –Whether expert witness evidence to be considered when it conflicts with contemporaneous evidence - Whether complaints in truth amounted to challenge on merits and contractual interpretation – Public policy – Minimal curial intervention – Finality of award – Discretion of court whether to set aside. 2 There are two originating summons filed under the Arbitration Act 2005 to set aside and enforce a Final Award arising from a construction arbitration. The legal issue was whether the Award should be set aside under section 37(1)(b)(ii) on grounds of breach of natural justice and conflict with public policy. The High Court held that the Arbitrator’s findings on delay analysis, extension of time and LAD were decisions on the merits, disclosed no material breach of natural justice, dismissed the setting-aside application, and allowed recognition and enforcement under section 38. 2 Two Originating Summons to be heard together which one is to set aside an Final Award and another is to enforce the same Final Award dated 27.8.2024. 2 right to counsel of choice-court has an inherent power to bar counsel-administration of justice-requires an unqualified perception of its fairness in the eyes of the general public-Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978-rules 3, 4, 5, 27 and 28-Rule 4. No advocate and solicitor to accept brief if professional conduct likely to be impugned-Rule 5. No advocate and solicitor to accept brief if difficult to maintain professional independence-Rule 27. Advocate and solicitor not to appear where pecuniarily interested-Rule 28. Advocate and solicitor not to appear in a case where he is a witness-Under common law a lawyer can also be disqualified from acting in a case on these grounds -Conflict of interest-Possession of confidential information in a non-client relationship; and-Appearance of Impropriety on the part of the lawyer such that justice would not be seen to be done-To disqualify a lawyer on the ground of Conflict of interest the following two criteria must be satisfied:-There must be an established relationship of solicitor and client; and -There must be confidential information conveyed to the solicitor-Even without a formal lawyer-client relationship, a lawyer may be disqualified if he or she has received confidential information from a party expecting it would be kept private-Appearance of Impropriety on the part of the lawyer such that justice would not be seen to be done-For this ground there need not be an existing relationship of solicitor and client or that confidential information had been conveyed to the solicitor.-The court has an inherent power to control the right of audience and bar lawyers who has a conflict of interest, or in which he appears to have a conflict of interest such that justice would not be seen to be done. -This power does not depend on the rules of professional conduct made by the legal profession and is not limited to cases where the rules are breached. The issue is not whether or not the rule was breached. The issue is whether the fair minded reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice required the removal of the solicitor.-The public interest in the administration of justice requires an unqualified perception of its fairness in the eyes of the general public. The goal is not just to protect the interests of the individual litigant but even more importantly to protect public confidence in the administration of justice.-justice would not be seen to be done if-counsel took sides 2 CIVIL PROCEDURE: minority oppression suits- business as rice traders since 1981- Consent Order to pursue a valuation-Parties after sometime could not agree-One party filed Variation for the Consent judgements-another filed Consequential Order as ancillary to the Consent Judgement-Liberty to apply Rule-Determination of the cut-off date for valuation-Period for retention of company accounts and audited reports-how far back in time can the parties go. 2 Arbitration – to set aside award – non-recognition of award – grounds enumerated in s.37 are exhaustive and the court cannot set aside an award for reasons other than those that are listed– the court do not sit as an appellate court – the merits before the arbitral tribunal are not open to scrutiny - section 37 of the Arbitration Act -Section 39 of the Arbitration Act Arbitration Law - Waiver – Estoppel – Not specifically pleaded in claim – relied on during course of proceeding – can be extended by conducts of parties – can be considered by the arbitrator based on the facts of the case – accepting the application for extension – not rejecting the application 2 Setting Aside Arbitral Award - Sections 37(1)(b)(ii), 37(2)(b)(i) & (ii) Arbitration Act 2005 - Breach of natural justice - Public policy - Master Mulia three-stage test - Reliance on hearsay evidence - Section 19 Arbitration Act 2005 - Tribunal not bound by Evidence Act 1950 - Admissibility and weight of evidence within tribunal's discretion - Misconstruction of pleadings as admissions - Challenges to tribunal's assessment of evidence and interpretation - Outside scope of Section 37 - Impermissible re-opening of merits - No serious or material breach - Enforcement of Award - Section 38 Arbitration Act 2005 - No impediment to enforcement. 2 Arbitration — Setting aside — Enforcement — Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal — Scope of submission to arbitration — “New difference” — Whether tribunal exceeded jurisdiction — Whether dispute contemplated by parties — Arbitration Act 2005, s 37(1)(a)(iv), (v) 2 Arbitration — Setting aside — Public policy — Illegality — Regulatory non-compliance — Whether award in conflict with public policy of Malaysia — Threshold — Arbitration Act 2005, s 37(1)(b)(ii), s 37(2) 2 Arbitration- Court intervention — Minimal curial interference — Errors of fact or law — Whether court may re-evaluate merits 2 Originating summons — Preliminary objection — Failure to specify precise statutory limb — Whether fatal — Prejudice 2 Judicial estoppel — Arbitration — Inconsistent positions — Integrity of judicial process 2 20. In the upshot the Court dismissed the OS with no order as to cost. 2 (a) Costs – Though at first instance, this Court was minded to order costs to be borne by the respective parties but it had allowed time for parties to consider the Obata-Ambak (supra) decision before proceeding with this hearing. Yet, the Purchasers continued to proceed, so costs for Suit 1479 in the sum of RM20,000 is awarded to the Developer (P3 is exempted). As it was heard together with Suit 2706, this Court will not impose costs on the Purchasers in Suit 2706. There is also no costs awarded against the Comptroller. Suit 1479 is dismissed except for the LAD claim for the 3rd Plaintiff/Purchaser and Suit 2706 is allowed. 2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial review – Industrial Court – Dismissal – Employee manager in holding company – Charged with misconduct in capacity of director of subsidiary company – No misconduct in capacity of manager – Industrial Court held dismissal without just cause and excuse – Finding of facts – Section 20(3) Industrial Relations Act 1967 2 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Leave to commence judicial review proceedings for certiorari – Investigation officer issued freezing order – Deputy Public Prosecutor issued seizure orders – Whether decision amenable to judicial review – Whether arguable case for mala fide shown – Insufficiency of pleading – sections 44(1) and 50(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 2 Challenge to the decision of the Strata Management Tribunal allowing claim of Management Committee-claim for miscellaneous charges of insurance premium, sanitary charges and quit rent allowed-whether the award of Tribunal ultra vires Strata Management Act 2013-whether the charges to be imposed under the Act envisages only maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund-award allowed claim for arrears of maintenance charges allegedly based on square foot and not tabled before the AGM-whether dispute of facts to be decided by Tribunal on the evidence-whether the award decided on issues already determined in a suit brought before the High Court 2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial Review – Industrial Court – Constructive dismissal – Burden of proof – Standard of proof – Whether conditions of constructive dismissal proven – Demotion – Responsibilities taken away – Reporting to someone who was a junior – Salary and grade intact – Finding of facts – Whether exceptions apply – Industrial Relations Act 1967 2 Admiralty – Set aside warrant of arrest – Whether bareboat charterparty terminated – Whether plaintiffs have right to possession of the vessel – Whether plaintiffs’ control over the charterer confer proprietary interest in the vessel – Order 70 rule 4(6)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether plaintiffs must disclose termination of the charterparty in the arrest affidavit. 2 Criminal Justice - offence of rape - appeal to the High Court - appellate intervention justified - no adequate consideration of the entire case by the trial judge - medical and forensic evidence not given adequate consideration - improbability of the alleged occurrence not duly considered - flawed identification parade - credibility of intoxicated victim - conviction entered is not safe - accused acquitted and discharged - appeal against sentence by prosecution dismissed. 2 Criminal Law — Appeal against sentence — Appellant charged under ss 376(2)(b), 377C, 377CA and 392/397 of Penal Code — Sentence for Armed Robbery — Whether whipping is mandatory — Sexual Offences — Whether sentence for armed robbery and sexual offences should run concurrently or consecutively — Seriousness of the offence 2 Criminal Justice - offences of drug trafficking and possession - accused persons acquitted and discharged at conclusion of trial - consideration of all evidence adduced pursuant to section 182A (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code - pivotal issue of accessibility to raided premises not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution - only proof of residential link available at conclusion of trial. 2 Bankruptcy law — Appeals — Industrial Court’s Award — Sanction of Director General of Insolvency (DGI) to prosecute the appeals — Whether a personal claim for wrongful termination requires previous sanction of the DGI — Whether vested in DGI — Whether respondents were competent to lodge their appeals at the Court of Appeal — Whether distinction between a breach that occurred before or after bankruptcy is relevant in employment related actions — Insolvency Act 1967 [Act 360], section 8(1)(b), section 38(1)(a); Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177], section 20 Company & Practice — Whether interpretation of the Articles of Association (AA) of a company is subject to past practices of directors — Implementation or exercise of the power under AA Judicial Review — Claim for wrongful termination and dismissal — Company directors — Whether IC’s award tainted with procedural impropriety, illegality or irrationality — Whether IC evaluated validity or propriety of the alleged misconduct and explanation — Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law in concluding that in the absence of an allegation of “any form of criminal conduct” the complaint “taken objectively, will not qualify as a misconduct” — Whether as employees with day to day management of the Company, was it right for the Respondents to put funds of the Company in their absolute control and beyond the reach and control of the Company— Whether such behavior of the respondents warrant dismissal— Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91], Schedule 1; Specific Relief Act 1950 [Act 137], section 44(1); Rules of Court 2012, Order 53 1 Civil procedure - Whether the applicant is entitled for review - Rules 137 of the Rules of Federal Court - Whether the was no majority decision of the Federal Court due to the retirement of one panel - Whether said judge has no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of fact by the Trial Court which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal Constitutional law - Courts - Federal Court - Whether there is a must to have a judge with Bornean judicial experience in the composition of the Federal Court - Section 74 of the Courts of Judicature Act - Para 26(4) of the Inter-Governmental Committee read together with Article VIII of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 - Whether failure to have a judge with Bornean judicial experience in the panel constitute a coram failure 1 Civil procedure - Whether there has been breached of section 78 of the Courts of Judicature Act - Whether there was in fact no majority judgment - Whether said judge has no jurisdiction to decide on the fact finding of the Trial Court which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal Constitutional law - Courts - Federal Court - Whether there is a must to have a judge with Bornean judicial experience in the composition of the Federal Court - Section 74 of the Courts of Judicature Act - Para 26(4) of the Inter-Governmental Committee read together with Article VIII of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 - Whether failure to have a judge with Bornean judicial experience in the panel constitute a coram failure - Whether the failure of the application to object to the lack of the presence of a Judge with Bornean judicial experience constitutes a complete waiver to object at the hearing of the appeal proper 1 This case brings to the fore, once again, the role and duty of the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths [the Registrar-General], the 1st respondent in this appeal, and the status of records of new lives and the passing of such lives in the register and indices maintained by the Registrar-General. As we see it, the register is a public record, accessible on terms, while the Registrar-General’s role is necessarily facilitative, objectively exercised. This case and its peculiar facts illustrate that understanding. Had that role and duty been properly appreciated from the outset, a substantial amount of misconception and angst would have been avoided. 1 Land Law- Acquisition of land-Compulsory Land Acquisition Dispute Compensation- Inordinate Delay and Compensation -Award by Superintendent of Lands and Survey Department- Dispute as to calculation of compensation- Interpretation of s. 60(1)(a) Sarawak Land Code - Modification under Article 162(6) of the Federal Constitution- modification of existing laws and its relevance to Sarawak Land Code.-Role of Judiciary and Legislature- Stare Decisis and Precedents- Constitutional Safeguards- Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution- interplay with state laws related to land acquisition- acquisition procedure- notifications under s. 47 and declarations under section 48 of the Sarawak Land Code-Whether to take into consideration market value as at date of publication of notification in s. 47 of Sarawak Land Code or date of gazette declaration under s. 48 . 1 Applicable test in determining constructive dismissal 1 Is there a difference in the contract test or reasonable test in light of major developments in industrial jurisprudence? 1 Whether there was a a total change of the nature of the appellant’s employment? 1 judicial review the Datuk Bandar’s discretion in the grant of planning permission conversion of public space for commercial development Federal Territory (Planning) Act of 1952 - section 22, section 22(4) legislative history the purpose and object of legislation restriction on category of objectors locus standi dissenting judgment in Govt of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang locus standi versus title to sue locus standi in the context of planning and environmental law Rule 5(3) of the Planning (Development) Rules 1970 Order 53 Rule 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 duty to consult and hear legal status of the KL Structure Plan conflict of interest or bias personal or institutional conflict of interest town and country planning public participation statutory development plan - the effect of gazetting draft local plan duty to give reasons duty of disclosure duty of candour 1 Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act. 1966 – Sections 16N and 16Y – Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulation 1989 – jurisdiction of Tribunal – whether Tribunal can rectify the SPA by the addition or exclusion of terms inconsistent with the statutory terms – power of Tribunal to vary or set aside a contract. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Appeal - Judicial review against decision of Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') - Whether the taxpayer’s application for judicial review had merit - Whether the availability of a domestic remedy under the Income Tax Act 1967 (“ITA”) precluded the taxpayer from seeking judicial review - Whether the DGIR’s decision or conduct in issuing the disputed notices was tainted with illegality - judicial review was appropriate due to the illegality of the appellant’s actions (double taxation) - the existence of an alternative remedy (appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, or SCIT) did not preclude judicial review, especially where there was clear illegality. 1 REVENUE LAW: Income tax – finality of tax assessments - Double taxation - DGIR adopted position that proceeds from disposal of lots subject to additional income tax under s. 4(1) of ITA - DGIR issued notices of additional assessment - sought to tax the respondent under both the RPGTA and ITA - Whether there was double taxation - Whether DGIR ought to have revised and discharged assessment under RPGTA then raise taxes under ITA - Whether decision or conduct of DGIR in issuing disputed notices tainted with illegality. 1 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: court will not read words into a statute - if there is an ambiguity in the law, such ambiguity must be construed in favour of the taxpayer - the words in section 20(1) are clear - no reason not to give effect to the clear words of ‘final and conclusive’ in section 20(1) of the RPGTA which mean what it says - 1 CONTRACT LAW: Validity of contract – Authenticity of contract – The Turquand Rule - Appellant claims for arrears of salary, commissions, compensation and bonus based on a purported oral agreement – the oral agreement was reduced into a written agreement (‘exhibit P22’) that was admitted in the High Court – Whether exhibit P22 is authentic and sufficiently proved – Whether the Appellant can rely on the ‘Turquand Rule’ to assume that the internal procedures of the company has been complied with. EVIDENCE LAW: Section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 – admissibility of oral evidence – oral evidence to contradict the terms of the agreement – Whether a document marked as an exhibit at the High Court can be challenged – The Principle of Concealment. 1 Unfair dismissal - dismissal without just cause or reason y sovereign state - embassy - principle of restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity - whether the proper forum to decide the applicability of restrictive doctrine of sovereignty immunity should be at the Industrial Court or by way of judicial review proceedings in the High Court - representation of dismissals - section 20 of the Industrial Court Act 1967 - reference by Minister to the Industrial Court - whether wrong in law 1 exemplary damages; aggravated damages; death of deceased in custody; an estate claim; Section 8 (2) Civil Law Act 1956; Article 162 (7) Federal Constitution; 1 ROSLIZA BINTI IBRAHIM 1 Land Law — Indefeasibility of title and interests— Deferred indefeasibility — Whether there is entitlement to protection under principle of deferred indefeasibility when registration of property was obtained by forgery — Chargee — Whether a chargee comes within the meaning of 'purchaser' under s 340(3) National Land Code — Whether a charge is valid and indefeasible as a subsequent purchaser within s 340(3) National Land Code 1 Appeal - Coram - Quorum failure - Coram failure of the Bench of Federal Court - Court Judicature Act 1964 ss74 - Borneo judicial experience - Judge with Bornean experience - Violation of Article 128 of Federal Constitution - Federal Constitution Article 122,128 1 Alienation of qualified title by way of lease by a State Authority under NLC 1965- contract of lease between the State Authority and the lessee- whether it is enforceable in private law 1 Land Acquisition Act 1960 1 A declaration that amendments to ss. 3 and 6 of the Pension Adjustment Act 1980 contravenes Art. 147 of the Federal Constitution (brought by ss. 3 and 7 of the PAA 2013) – HC dismissed the OS – CA (Vazeer Alam, Darryl Goon & Abu Bakar Jais, JJCA) allowed the pensioners’ appeal and set aside HC’s decision (Faizah Jamaludin, J) Responden's Solicitor vide letter dated 6.9.2022 (Encl. 14) has filed an application for enlargement of Panel (at least 5 Judges). 1 TORT: False imprisonment - Unlawful detention by police - Claimant blindfolded, stripped and assaulted by police during interrogation - Claimant detained following remand order issued by Magistrate - Claim for damages - Whether arrest lawful - Whether detention under remand orders valid - Whether remand order properly issued by Magistrate - Whether remand order may be challenged by collateral proceeding - Protection afforded under s. 32 of Police Act 1967 - Whether damages awarded appropriate - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 117 & 119 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to life and liberty - Claimant blindfolded, stripped and assaulted by police during interrogation - Claimant detained following remand order issued by Magistrate - Whether arrest lawful - Whether detention under remand orders valid - Whether detention lawful - Whether in breach of claimant's constitutional right - Federal Constitution, art. 5 1 Local Government Act 1976 [Act 171] 1 remission of stamp duty for a loan without security condition precedent for state authority to be fully responsible for loan Incorporation (State Legislatures Competency) Act 1962 Penang Development Corporation Enactment 1971 Stamp Duty Act 1949 section 17A Interpretation Acts purpose and object of an Act importing definitions and provisions from other legislation 1 Contract law - agreement to manage and operate outdoor advertising sites through tender process - whether there is a concluded contract - whether there is absolute and unqualified acceptance - approaches to determine whether the contracting parties reached consensus ad idem on the terms of contract 1 TRADE MARK LAW: Infringement of Trade Mark and Passing Off – Section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1976 [Act 175] - Trade mark infringement - Registered trade mark - Infringing names - goodwill - Leave to appeal (questions of law) - Whether the use of generic words which form part of a company, corporate, trade of domain name, which such words are also comprised as part of registered trade mark of another party (but which are not registered as a word mark or disclaimed), is deemed to be an infringement of such registered trade mark - If so, what is the definition of “allied field” for the purpose of determining whether such usage in relation to passing off action” is to be considered an act of passing off - What is the definition of “engaging in a business of an allied field” which would amount to a misrepresentation in relation to a passing off action, where one party has generic words which form part of their company, corporate, trade or domain name, and such words are also comprised as part of a registered trade mark or company name of another party. 1 Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah 1 Native Law and Custom - Declaratory reliefs - Native entitlement - Permanent residents of forest reserve - Plaintiffs were entitled under gazette Notification No. 760 to forage or harvest the forest produce in those areas subject to the express conditions - Whether the practice of the plaintiffs is similar to pulau galau and pemakai menoa - Whether practices of the plaintiffs are based on native customary rights - Whether the rights of the plaintiffs are statutorily created - Whether the imposition of conditions within the Second Schedule of Gazette Notification No. 760 entitles the State to retain control over areas other than cleared land or temuda within the forest reserve - Extent of control by State - Whether there are local limits to exercise rights - Section 12(2) of Sarawak Forest Ordinance 1934 Tort - Trespass to land - Encroachment by the defendants - Construction of railway track to carry out logging activities over part of lands causing serious damage to the environment - Concession was granted to licensed timber company - Whether plaintiffs have legal occupation over forest reserve - Whether encroachment to the forest reserve without the plaintiff’s permission amounts to trespass - Whether the findings of the lower courts that the defendants were liable for trespass was justified - Whether the written permission could become a defence for trespass in civil suit - Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages - Section 12(2) of Sarawak Forest Ordinance 1934 1 Busing 1 Amitbha 1 Citizenship by operation of law Abandoned children 1 Damages — Appeal — Exemplary damages — Damages Award against police — Compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned by his death — Tort — Misfeasance in public office — Effect of death on certain causes of action — Where claim is founded upon a breach of constitutional right to life — Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67), section 7, section 8(2) 1 Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956, kes-kes berkaitan dengan Rujukan Tanah, Rayuan Cukai Pendapatan dan Rayuan yang melibatkan Badan-badan berkanun terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan 1 The short legal question that arises in this appeal is whether absolute privilege should be extended to the defamatory statements contained in a police report lodged by a police officer under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against him under the Public Officer (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 (“Regulations 1993”). 1 judicial review, powers of the public prosecutor or attorney general, immunity from legal process, appropriate circumstances. 1 Civil Procedure - Government Proceedings - Statutory right - Cause of Action - Right of the Government to sue - Written Law - Application of common law of England and the rules of equity together with statues general application - Whether s3 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and s3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 precludes the principle in Derbyshire Country Council v. Times Newspaper Ltd & Ors [1993] AC 534 to be extended to the Government of Sarawak - Civil Law Act 1958 ss3 Civil Procedure - Libel - Defamatory words - Defamatory meaning - Constructions of the words published - Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing defamatory meaning - Question of Law - Whether the right of party under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 is deemed to have elected to have abandoned all other causes of action, issues or defences pleaded by party - Whether litigant applying for O 14A procedure to be wary to include in application all questions of law that could determine rights of parties — Rules of Court 2012 O 14A 1 Civil Procedure — Appeal — Cross-appeal — Striking out cross-appeal — Scope or extent of matters that could rightfully be pursued under a cross-appeal — Appellant’s appeal limited to a specified part of judgment — Whether respondent could bring a cross-appeal in relation to other parts of the judgment not appealed against — Whether cross-appeal must be limited to the issue raised on appeal — Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 rr 5, 8, Form 2 — Whether the Court of Appeal acted within its jurisdiction when it set aside the whole of the order or decision of the High Court, including that part which decided that “the Plaintiffs have acquired and/or created communal native customary rights over the said land and are still the lawful proprietors of the same for the specific patches of cleared areas and which is not appealed against, in determining the cross appeals brought by the defendants and the interveners”. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Challenge against decision of Director General of National Registration (‘DGNR’) - Application by Malay Muslim illegitimate child - Application to enter name of father of child in child’s Birth Register - DGNR issued child’s birth certificate and entered child’s full name with ‘bin Abdullah’ instead of ‘bin’ father’s name - Application to correct child’s name from ‘bin Abdullah’ to ‘bin’ father’s name dismissed by DGNR - Whether DGNR’s refusal to correct or alter particulars ‘bin Abdullah’ to be substituted with ‘bin’ father’s name in Birth Register made in accordance with law - Whether s. 13A of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 (‘BDRA’) applies to registration of births of Muslim children - Whether enabling child to be named with personal name of person acknowledged to be father of child - Whether ‘surname’ in s. 13A of BDRA includes patronymic surnames - Whether Malays have surnames CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Personal liberty - Challenge against decision of Director General of National Registration (‘DGNR’) - Application by Malay Muslim illegitimate child - Application to enter name of father of child in child’s Birth Register - DGNR issued child’s birth certificate and entered child’s full name with ‘bin Abdullah’ instead of ‘bin’ father’s name - Child’s birth certificate contained notation ‘Permohonan Seksyen 13’ as acknowledgment of registration of birth for illegitimate child - Whether entry of ‘bin Abdullah’ and notation ‘Permohonan Seksyen 13’ in child’s birth certificate infringed child’s fundamental liberties ISLAMIC LAW: Legislation - Islamic law of State - Challenge against decision of Director General of National Registration (‘DGNR’) - Application by Malay Muslim illegitimate child - Application to enter name of father of child in child’s Birth Register - DGNR issued child’s birth certificate and entered child’s full name with ‘bin Abdullah’ instead of ‘bin’ father’s name - Child’s birth certificate contained notation ‘Permohonan Seksyen 13’ as acknowledgment of registration of birth for illegitimate child - DGNR relied on fatwa by National Fatwa Committee (‘NFC’) in arriving at decision - Whether, in performing registration of births of Muslim children, Registrar of Births and Deaths may refer to and rely on sources of Islamic law on legitimacy - Whether DGNR could rely on fatwa by NFC when child is subjected to Islamic laws of State - Whether illegitimate Muslim child could be ascribed to name of father in Islam - Islamic Family Law (State of Johor) Enactment 2003, ss. 52 & 111 1 Article 4(1) Federal Constitution 1 Article 4(2) Federal Constitution 1 Article 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution 1 Article 10(2)(a) Federal Constitution 1 Freedom of speech and expression 1 Article 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution guarantees expression subject to permissible restrictions 1 Permissible restrictions under Article 10(2)(a) Federal Constitution 1 Words “offensive” and “annoy” in section 233(1)(a) CMA 1 Presumption of constitutionality 1 Principle of reading down 1 Vagueness avoidance doctrine 1 Purpose of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 1 Prevent improper use of network facilities 1 Digital regulation in the age of social media 1 Safeguard against harm in online communications. 1 Guidelines on prosecution recommended 1 Effect of striking out of “offensive” and “annoy” 1 Removal of “offensive” and “annoy” impacts related offences under section 233(1)(a) Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 1 Freedom of speech has inherent restrictions 1 Art 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution does not encompass communication with intent to harm or cause injury to another individual or group of persons 1 Constitutional challenge timing 1 Whether challenge was properly brought in the absence of a subsisting factual matrix. 1 These appeals concern the proper construction of the definition of “machinery” in the proviso (b) to the definition of “annual value” under section 2 of the Local Government Act 1976 (“LGA”). 1 Some of the land involved in that development was subdivided into Lots 35126, 35127 and 35129. These subdivided lots were initially acquired by the State Government on 23.7.2015 for the purpose of “Projek Lebuhraya Bertingkat Sungai Besi – Ulu Kelang (SUKE), Daerah Ulu Langat, Selangor”. Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia [LLM], the 2nd respondent was the paymaster for this acquisition. On 9.12.2016, the declaration of acquisition was amended to involve only Lots 35126 and 35127. 1 Reported in [2017] 5 MLJ 549 Constitutional Law — Constitution — Acquisition of property — Respondents filed action in High Court claiming they were original title holders or native customary rights (‘NCR’) owners of lands within development area and never surrendered, abandoned, lost or waived their NCR rights — Whether appellants in breach of art 13 of the Federal Constitution by compulsorily acquired respondents’ NCR lands without giving compensation — Federal Constitution, Article 13 Land Law — Customary land — Native customary rights — Respondents filed action in High Court claiming they were original title holders or native customary rights (‘NCR’) owners of lands within development area and never surrendered, abandoned, lost or waived their NCR rights — Whether consenting NCR owners/interveners had locus in present case — Whether it was proven that respondents’ NCR lands were within development area — Whether s 8 of the Sarawak Land Code violated — Land Custody and Development Authority Ordinance (No 4 of 1981) ss 11 & 15 — Sarawak Land Code s 8 1 Indefeasibility of title and interest - whether a party is an immediate or subsequent purchaser - whether subsequent purchaser is a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration - circumstances under which a term may be implicated to a letter of undertaking - implied terms - official bystander test - business efficacy test - fraud and forgery of instruments - non-existent forged title - bona fide purchaser for value - Torrens system - National Land Code 1965, s.340, (2), (3) 1 In this appeal, the appellant was court-martialled and found guilty for the offence of desertion under section 54(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 1972 [Act 77] by the respondent. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment and dishonourable discharge from His Majesty’s service. The appellant challenged the respondent’s decision by way of judicial review proceedings. He was unsuccessful at both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 1 These appeals concern a most unfortunate event of assault in a residential school, what is frequently referred to as ‘school bullying’. Schools of any arrangement are for learning, where a person is educated in the many disciplines and subjects, preparing them for responsibilities, choices and positions in life. These are important formative years where personalities are formed and traits enhanced. It is therefore only reasonable and fair to expect that these places of learning, even if residential facilities are provided, are safe and conducive. In the case of residential schools, the responsibility would obviously be even wider and more extensive. 1 OUSTER CLAUSES JUDICIAL POWER RIGHT TO TRAVEL FUNDAMENTAL LIBETIES CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY 1 [2018] 3 CLJ 1 [2018] 1 LNS 28 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Abuse of process - What constituted abuse - Approach to abuse of process - Issue already litigated in earlier proceedings against same applicant - Whether proceedings an abuse of process of court CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Freedom of speech and expression - Challenge as to constitutionality of s. 3(3) of Sedition Act 1948 - Respondent charged under section 4(1)(c) - Application for declaration that section 3(3) violated article 10(1)(a) of Federal Constitution - Whether charge amounted to unreasonable restriction to freedom of speech and expression - Whether charge rendered unconstitutional - Whether ought to be struck out - Federal Constitution, article 10(1)(a) CRIMINAL LAW: Sedition Act 1948 - Section 4(1)(c) - Elements of offence - Whether 'act of publishing a seditious publication' established - Whether publication has seditious tendency under section 3(1) - Intention of person charged deemed irrelevant under section 3(3) - Whether offence established 1 Civil - trespass of land - Judicial Sale - issue on transfer or surrender of land without consent from the chargee - section 204 of the NLC - whether a successful bidder at the auction sale under the National Land Code 1965 must recognise the interest of a person or a body not registered against the title to the land now duly registered in the successful bidder’s name - whether the right of the appellant as the registered owner under sections 89 (conclusiveness of register documents of title) and 340 of the NLC 1965 registration to confer indefeasible title) can be defeated by a promise to surrender the said property made by the Previous Owners - whether there was a valid surrender of Subject Land under sections 196(1)(c) read with 196(2)(a) of the NLC 1965 when the consent of the chargee had not been obtained. 1 Section 128 of the Customs Act 1967. 1 Invalid & unlawful continuous seizure of goods 1 Failure to refer the appellant’s claim to the Magistrate under section 128(3) of the Customs Act 1967 where there is no prosecution. 1 Whether there was a valid written claim of the said goods made by the appellant under subsection 128(2) of Act 235 1 Whether an agent is considered an “owner” who may claim for the goods under section 128(2) of Act 235 1 [1] There are three appeals before us, two by Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia [LLM] and the third is by MMC Tepat Teknik Sdn Bhd [MMC Tepat Teknik]. All three appeals arise out of the compulsory acquisition of lands belonging to MMC Tepat Teknik under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486]. After full consideration of the issues, we unanimously allowed the appeals by LLM and dismissed the appeal by MMC Tepat Teknik. 1 Trade Marks - Registration - Opposition to registration - Dismissal of opposition by Registrar of Trade Marks ('Registrar') - Appeal to High Court and further appeal to Court of Appeal - Whether High Court exercising its original or appellate jurisdiction - Whether matter ought to end at Court of Appeal - Whether aggrieved party has right to appeal to Federal Court - Whether appeal lay outside scope of section 96 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Trade Marks Act 1976, sections 28, 67, 69 Civil Procedure - Appeal - Appeal to Federal Court - Right to appeal - Whether judgment or order of Court of Appeal appealable to Federal Court - Matter originated from Registrar of Trade Marks ('Registrar') - Whether appeal to High Court a rehearing of original cause before Registrar - Whether High Court exercising its original or appellate jurisdiction in appeal from Registrar - Whether nature of High Court's role under section 28 of Trade Marks Act 1976 had characteristics of original jurisdiction - Whether matter ought to end at Court of Appeal - Whether aggrieved party has right to appeal to Federal Court - Whether appeal came within ambit of section 96(a) of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Trade Marks Act 1976, sections 67 & 69 Words and Phrases - 'appeal' - Trade Marks Act 1976, section 28 - Hearing before High Court arising from decision of Registrar of Trade Marks - Whether consistent with substantive nature of appellate jurisdiction exercised by High Court 1 While the above observations were made in the context of the tax regime where the decisions of the Special Commissioners are appealed upon through the case stated mechanism, we find the principles as discussed apply equally to the appeal by case stated process stipulated under section 39 of Act 378. Although section 39 talks about the Collector identifying or setting forth the question upon which the opinion of the High Court is required, and the Collector’s decision on that question, without specifying that the question set out is a question of law, the question is necessarily one of law having regard to the case stated process. This is fortified when we turn to the other provisions in section 39. For instance, the High Court is required to assess the duty chargeable in the event it forms the opinion that the instrument in question is chargeable with duty. 1 sovereign immunity state immunity extra territoriality international law concepts Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution right to freedom of expression statements made in Malaysia which are the subject matter of foreign legislation Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (‘POFMA’) section 11 POFMA extra territorial jurisdiction of POFMA enforceability of POFMA in Malaysia POFMA's compatibility with the Federal Constitution extra territorial expansion of a state’s prescriptive jurisdiction principles on striking out summarily dismissing a case immunity as a threshold issue 1 Income Tax Act 1967 (‘ITA’) tax arrears additional income tax taxpayer challenge to summary claim by the Inland Revenue Board section 106(3) ITA constitutional challenge tax liability ‘Pay first, dispute later’ system payment of tax upon assessment if taxpayer is successful, money is reimbursed 1 Article 121 of the Federal Constitution ('FC') Article 5(1) FC Article 4(1) FC Article 8(1) FC whether there was usurpation of judicial power 1 the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (‘SCIT’) are the judges of fact 1 purpose of the ITA facilitate expeditious collection deter tax evasion 1 whether summary judgment is the right method of collection of debt 1 test of permissible classification 1 certificate pursuant to section 142(1) ITA 1 The 348 appellants before us were the plaintiffs whose claims against the respondents were struck out by the High Court upon the application of the respondents [enclosure 29]. The principal if not the sole reason for allowing the interlocutory application was because the action was “obviously unsustainable” as the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to maintain the action. 1 Civil law - section 129 of the Local Government Act 1976 - section 130(i) LGA 1976 - Whether the electrical structures/machineries must be considered together with the land and the building in assessing the improved value rate - Whether the imposition of ‘Improved Value’ in state of Johor is ultra vires section 129 of the LGA 1976 - Whether The Electrical Structures/machineries Located At The PMUs Can Be Imposed With Improved Value Rate Under The LGA 1976 - Whether Machinery Falls Under The Definition Of The ‘Building’ In Section 2 Of The LGA 1976 - 1 citizenship by operation of law, illegitimate children, jus soli, jus sanguinis. 1 Election petition appeal – whether the proviso in section 38(1)(a) of the Election Offences Act 1954 must be read independently from section 38(1) of the Act or must be read together? 1 Proviso (a) of section 38(1) of the EOA applies to any election petition on grounds of corrupt practice and payment of monies after the date of the publication of the election’s result in the Gazette. 1 Whether the particulars of how the petitioner’s agent was appointed must be stated in the election petition? 1 Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486] 1 Contract - Contract Act s29 - property under construction - progressive payment - termination of SPA due to unpaid sum - plaintiff claim damages for termination - terms of contract - exclusion clause negates the right of plaintiff to a suit of damages - absolute restriction of suit - whether an exclusion clause in an agreement may be struck out by provisions of s29 1 Committal proceedings - non-compliance of money judgment - proceedings under section 360 Capital Markets and Service Act 2004 against a bankrupt - leave pursuant to 5.8 (1) Bankruptcy Act 1967 1 Arbitration — Appeal — Award — Setting aside final award — Grounds for the court’s intervention — Whether award manifestly unlawful and unconscionable — Whether arbitrator adopted proper approach in construing agreement — Whether arbitrator committed any error of law in construing agreement — Whether there was need to intervene as to method adopted by arbitrator to assess value of shares — Whether arbitrator erred in awarding pre and post award interest— Arbitration Act 1952 [Act 93- now repealed by Act 646], section 24; Arbitration Act 2005 [Act 646], section 37(1), section 42 (1) and (1A) 1 Public Utilities — Electricity — Charges for electricity — Recovery of unbilled / back-billed usage of electricity — Electric meter room under control of Tenaga Nasional Bhd (Tenaga/TNB) — Meter tampered resulting in under-recording of usage of electricity — Claim by TNB for loss of revenue — Whether a consumer must first be convicted for meter tampering before Tenaga could recover loss of revenue — Legal effect of written statement from TNB — Whether an estimation or approximation of the loss of revenue suffered by TNB as a result of a tampered meter at the consumer’s premises is precluded under a section 38 claim — Whether method of calculation unreasonable — Whether rationale enabling TNB to recover unrecorded consumption of electricity by consumer due to a tampered meter is the unjust benefit enjoyed by the consumer — Whether Whether estoppel arising from delay applies to nullify a section 38 claim — Electricity Supply Act 1990 [Act 447], sections 38(3) and (4) 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — Preliminary issues — Appeal — Grounds of judgment — Non-speaking judgment — Whether to allow an appeal simply because the judgment of the lower court was a non-speaking judgment — For the appellate court to determine whether or not the learned trial judge had committed any error in the findings and application of laws to those facts — Pronouncement of judgement — Whether the Court of Appeal was validly constituted at the time unanimous decision was pronounced — Certificate of grounds of judgement — Delay in delivering grounds of judgment — Validity of — Whether a retrial or a rehearing is warranted — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91], section 38, section 42(1), section 100, section 101; Rules of the Federal Court 1995 (P.U.(A) 376/1995), Rule 64 DAMAGES — Whether aggravating factors should be compensated for as general damages — Whether aggravated damages could be awarded as a separate head of damages in tort — English Court of Appeal in Richardson v Howie [2004] EWCA Civ 1127— Whether as explained in Michael Jones’ Medical Negligence, 4th Edn 2008, para 12-011 LIABILITY — 2 doctors as well as the Hospital — Medical negligence — Whether the 2 doctors are qualified professionals and working as independent contractors in a private hospital — Whether negligent in failing to warn the Plaintiff of the risks of bucking and blindness — Whether private hospital be held vicariously liable for the sole negligence of the doctors — Medical Act 1971 [Act 50] TORT — Medical negligence — Standard of care— Negligence of an ophthalmologist and an anaesthetist — Whether it is the Bolam test or the test in the Australian case of Rogers v Whitaker [1993] 4 Med LR 79 which should be applied to the standard of care in medical negligence 1 Sithradevi 1 Trade Marks — Trade description — Trade description order (TDO) — Appeal — Appellants applied to set aside TDO — Whether permissible to apply on ex parte basis — Whether High Court is empowered to declare goods as imitation goods on ex parte basis — Whether TDOs obtained pursuant to s 9 of Act 730 applies to enforce a registered trade mark that is not in use for a long period or abandon in its use — Whether s 9 would be invoked when unregistered mark are commonly in use and subject to concurrent use by both parties — Trade Description Act 2011 [Act 730], s 9 — Trade Mark Act 1972 [Act 87], s 23(1) 1 Contract : Payment for work done - Interim certificate - Whether interim certificates may be considered as a final amount of the value of work done - Contract subject to re-measurement - Whether amount claimed based on said interim certificates would be subjected to re-measurement - Question posed to Federal Court not related to a matter in respect of which a determination has been made by the court below - Effect of 1 Tort : Defamation - Absolute privilege - Letters alleged to be defamatory sent to various investigative agencies without authority or mandate - Whether absence of such authority or mandate would negate or make unavailable defence of absolute privilege - Whether requisite authority or mandate is necessary for absolute privilege to apply Tort : Defamation - Absolute privilege - Nature and scope of - Whether police report protected by absolute privilege - Public policy considerations Tort : Defamation - Absolute privilege - Reports to other public investigative agencies and authorities - Whether ratio in Lee Yoke Ham v. Chin Keat Seng ought to be applied to reports to other public investigative agencies and authorities - Whether report to other public investigative agencies and authorities protected by absolute privilege Tort : Defamation - Libel - Malice - Whether defence of qualified privilege not available if shown tortfeasor actuated by actual or express malice or if tortfeasor motivated by some indirect or wrong motive - Whether mere act of filing complaints with various relevant authorities, without more, insufficient to prove malice Tort : Defamation - Qualified privilege - Letter of complaint sent by Complainant as President of Association to Bar Council because Complainee an advocate and solicitor - Whether Complainant had an interest to make such complaint - Whether Bar Council had corresponding interest to receive such letter of complaint - Whether such letter of complaint protected by qualified privilege Tort : Defamation - Qualified privilege - Nature and scope of - Whether qualified privilege depended on the nature of the occasion in which the impugned communication was made - Whether a matter of law for the judge to decide whether occasion was privilege 1 unfair dismissal Industrial Relations Act 1967 0 section 20, section 30, purpose of the Act workman's right to be heard reasons raised subsequent to dismissal post-dismissal matters reasons in pleadings not raised at time of dismissal whether subsequent factors are admissible to justify dismissal 1 Civil procedure - documents - agreed bundle - whether documents in Part A of agreed bundle of documents cannot be challenged - whether the Court of Appeal is correct in concluding that the litigating parties agreed to place the email in Part of the Agreed Bundle of Documents - pleadings - whether court has discretion to raise new issue in appeal that is not specifically pleaded - whether Court of Appeal had erred in law and fact in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not lead evidence on allegedly defamatory statements which had not been specifically pleaded 1 Locus standi - Penjaga ad litem tidak lagi diperlukan bagi kanan-kanak yang telah mencapai umur dewasa - Kegagalan untuk mematuhi kehendak undang-undang di bawah Aturan 57(1) dan 57(4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Persekutuan 1995 1 Banking — Appeal — Overdraft facility — Pleadings — Statement of claim adverting to cause of action in negligence — Whether wrongful withdrawal of monies against overdraft account — Whether respondent bank negligent in uplifting the sum pledged as a set-off against the overdraft account — Effect and repercussion — Whether cause of action in tort abandoned — Whether appellant’s pleaded cause of action was for the tort of negligence, which he had abandoned and not for breach of contract— Whether appeal to be dismissed 1 Tort — Defamation — Libel in newspaper — Plaintiff a politician — Publication of defamatory statements in two news articles — Whether statements referred to plaintiff — Whether words in news articles were defamatory of plaintiff — Whether defendants establish the Reynolds privilege defence — Defences — Whether defendants could rely on defences of qualified privilege and fair comment —Damages— Assessment of damages Quantum of — Whether seriousness of libel and recklessness in its publication were relevant factors in determining quantum — Defamation Act 1957 [Act 286], s 12 & Schedule Part 2 1 Tort - Trespass - Trespass to land - Illegal squatters - Supply of electricity to occupiers of land and emplacement of conduits on land without consent of registered landowner - Whether action in trespass maintainable in law when period of trespass was for same period when stay order was in force in respect of subject land - Whether action in trespass maintainable against appellant for supply of electricity to occupants of premises on subject land pursuant to s 24(1) and (5) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 upon determination that occupants in unlawful occupation of subject land - Electricity Supply Act 1990 ss24(1) & (5) - Federal Constitution art 13 1 Building and Construction Law — Appeal — Adjudication award — Construction contracts — Payment disputes — Whether a jurisdictional challenge can be made any time by way of application or whether such an application can only be made upon the application to set aside an Adjudication Award — Application to challenge jurisdiction of the Adjudicator — Whether the Adjudicator has the right to exclude the defences of the appellant — Whether the exclusion of defence amounts to a denial of natural justice — Whether the Adjudicator had acted in breach of natural justice in excluding and refusing to consider certain defences — Application seeking the registration and enforcement of the adjudication decision as a judgment of the Court — Application to set aside and/or stay the award— Whether applications ought to be set aside and dismissed — Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746], section 2, section 3, section 4, section 5, section 6, section 15, section 16, section 26, section 27, section 28, section 41 1 Employment Law - Expatriate - Dismissal from employment - without just cause or excuse - dismissal protection - “single economic unit” or “functional integrity” test in ascertaining the continuity of employment Company Law - lift of corporate veil - whether veil should be lifted to determine the nature of employment when there were no apparent special circumstances such as fraud or unconscionable act by employer - court to strike balance between piercing corporate veil in exceptional circumstances and legitimate entitlements of wrongfully dismissed employees - fairness, equality and proportionality in treatment of vulnerable employees - Hotel Jaya Puri Bhd v National Union of Hotel Bar and Restaurant Workers [1980] 1 MLJ 109 case is still a good law for industrial jurisprudence Contract Law - Fixed term contract or permanent contract of employment - whether a need for a work permit is material to determine the genuine nature of contract - whether successive automatic renewal of contract of employment without intermittent breaks in between is a permanent employment - determination through employer’s subsequent conduct during the course employment and total duration of service 1 KALWANT SINGH 1 Civil Procedure — Contempt of court — Order of committal — Administration of justice — Application granted for Attorney General’s Chambers to be substituted as the applicant in the contempt proceedings — Reasons advanced for non-appearance of contemnors in court — The request that the contemnors’ personal attendance in court be dispensed with and the matter against them be dealt with in absentia — Whether the Federal Court has the power to proceed with the trial of the contempt proceedings and to impose sentence against both the contemnors — Based on the mitigating factors and circumstances of the case, the appropriate sentence against both of them, was a fine of RM100,000.00 in default eight (8) months imprisonment each. 1 Contract - Terms - Consent Judgment - Mutual obligations and promises - Whether court may effectively release one party of its obligation without releasing the other party where there is a consent order - Whether the Consent Judgment constitutes mutual promises which are dependent on each other - Sections 53 and 55 of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether the sections are applicable - Whether the Court of Appeal had erred in affirming the High Court decision to grant declaration releasing one party from its obligation under the Consent Judgment - Whether court could set aside or nullify a part of a valid consent order - in absence of allegations or findings of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence - Whether releasing one party from its obligation in the Consent Judgment indicates that the Consent Judgment has been set aside or varied Trust - Constructive trust - Applicability - Where property is purchased by one party (A) for the sole purpose of a joint venture with a second party (B) and the joint venture does not materialise, is the property so purchased held in constructive trust for both parties - Whether justice and good conscience demand for its application - Whether Appellant could rely on constructive trust argument 1 Arbitration - Award - Recognition and enforcement application by way of entry as High Court judgment - Section 2, 38 and 39 of Arbitration Act 2005 - Rule 8, Order 69 of the Rules of Court 2012 - Whether such entry relates only to the disposition and not entire award - Whether entry of entire award would undermine the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings 1 ORTUS WHITE 1 The focus in this appeal is in respect of the liability of the respondent; the other defendants at the High Court are not parties to this appeal. Aside from Question 6 which deals with the calculation of damages, all the other questions pertain to the issue of whether a private hospital may be liable for the tort of a medical practitioner who is said to be an independent contractor. In short, whether such an entity itself owes an independent duty which is non-delegable, regardless to whom it may have delegated that duty to, irrespective who may have performed the act or omission complained of, whether under a contract for service or due to the patient’s own choice. 1 Evidence : Burden of proof - Whether approach adopted by High Court and Court of Appeal was correct regarding the discharge of burden of proof by plaintiff seeking judgment in respect of matters of a technical nature - Whether plaintiff had proven its case on balance of probabilities against defendants Evidence : Expert evidence - Onus upon plaintiff to establish facts which by their nature demand expert evidence under s 45 Evidence Act 1950 - Whether open to court to hold said onus to have been discharged without plaintiff calling any expert evidence - Required standard of an expert witness - Whether fulfilled. 1 Legal Profession - Disciplinary Board - Complaint against advocate for professional misconduct — Complaint dismissed by Disciplinary Board — Appeal to High Court dismissed — Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed — Whether letter of complaint amounted to complain as envisaged by Legal Profession Act 1976 — Whether respondent drafted or involved in drafting of statutory declaration — Legal Profession Act 1976 s 99 1 Contract — Building contract — Retention sum held by employer - Employer went into voluntary liquidation owing millions of ringgit in unpaid retention monies to numerous subcontractors — Whether pending its release, employer held retention sum on trust for contractor/subcontractor — Whether subcontractors only had a claim in debt unless facts and circumstances strongly indicated that monies were held on trust for them by employer — Whether trust can be implied in absence of any express trust provision 1 Contract law - tenancy agreement - default in payment of rental - recovery of rental and interest for the tenancy period - existence of express condition of title for the land - whether the tenant has knowledge of the contravention of the express condition of title - whether the tenancy agreement void and illegal under Section 66 Contracts Act 1950 for contravening express condition of title Land law - conversion - submission for surrender, re-alienation, amalgamation and conversion of land use from residential to commercial and mix development - whether the change of use become effective upon approval by state authority - Section 124, 204D National Land Code 1 Contract law - tenancy agreement - default in payment of rental - recovery of rental and interest for the tenancy period - existence of express condition of title for the land - whether the tenant has knowledge of the contravention of the express condition of title - whether the tenancy agreement void and illegal under Section 66 Contracts Act 1950 for contravening express condition of title Land law - conversion - submission for surrender, re-alienation, amalgamation and conversion of land use from residential to commercial and mix development - whether the change of use become effective upon registration and issuance of new issue document of title - Section 124, 204D National Land Code 1 Contract- Moneylenders- Loan - Friendly loan – Whether loan granted a friendly loan or an illegal moneylending transaction in contravention of Moneylenders Act 1951- The loan agreement included a clause stating that the borrowed amount must be repaid along with an equivalent sum defined as the agreed profit- Breach of friendly loan agreement and personal guarantee by director – Whether judgment can be granted solely for the repayment of the principal loan amount excluding the agreed profit? - Whether the land titles held as collateral be returned to their rightful owners? -Whether the borrower unable to conclusively prove that the lender was an illegal moneylender or engaged in moneylending business? -Whether the lender successfully refuted, based on the balance of probabilities, the presumption under Section 10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 that it was involved in moneylending activities? 1 Trade Marks — Appeal — Trademark and passing off — Infringement of — Trademark used in partnership with consent and approval — Dispute between parties — Notice sent to refrain from using trademark — Whether by conduct of respondent and facts of case, there was infringement — Whether protection afforded by Act 175 could not be sustained — Whether the appellant assign the trade mark to the respondents — Trade Marks Act 1976 [Act 175] sections 35, 40, 41, 47, 55 1 Civil procedure - Civil - Notice of Appeal - Plaintiff sued 50 defendants separately in 50 separate suits for similar relief in relation to 50 different premises - Judgment in default were obtained against 13 defendants while 37 suits were contested - parties of for the 37 suits agreed for the case to be tried as a “test case” - the decision would bind all 37 suits - Whether one notice of appeal filed by the losing defendant in the test case can operate as a common notice of appeal to cover appeals by the other parties - Whether the 36 defendants could hitch a ride on the respondent’s notice of appeal - Whether the liability of each defendant was distinct and separate since there were 37 separate and distinct order sealed and signed by the High Court -Definition of a “test case” - The requirements of a “test case” - the treatment of a “test case” on appeal - Whether the agreement between parties to be bound by the decision of the test case is without an expiry date - Whether the Court of Appeal had the power to make any order against the parties who did not lodge any appeal against the decision of the test case 1 Hire purchase - hire purchase agreement - motorcar - deposit paid to dealer/supplier and obtained financing from financial institution - alleged breach of implied guarantee, or breach of implied warranty or condition as to quality and fitness under Consumer Protection Act 1999 - whether there is a contract of sale between consumer and dealer/supplier - whether the contractual relationship between consumer and dealer/supplier is superseded by a hire purchase agreement - whether consumer has capacity to initiate action against dealer/supplier - whether consumer may terminate hire purchase agreement 1 Companies and Corporations— Banker – customer relationship — Breach of contract — Breach of trust and various other causes of action — Sinking Funds — A deed of assignment and a power of attorney, both dated 19.9.2003, in favour of the 1st respondent — No written notice of an absolute assignment — Whether debtor liable to the assignee for the debt under the assignment — Whether debtor has knowledge of an assignment between its customer and third party— Can the debtor be held liable to that third party for the debt where the debtor has made payment of the same to its customer — Where the creditor has assigned the benefit of funds in a fixed deposit account to a third party, can mere knowledge of the identity of the signatories to a current account, constitute notice of an assignment to the debtor — Civil Law Act 1956 [Act 67]; Section 4(3) 1 Construction Law - Construction contracts - Adjudication of payment disputes - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (‘CIPAA’) - Claim for payment of unpaid progress for work done - Whether enforcement of adjudication decision in Section 28 CIPAA as an Order of the Court can be stayed - Section 16 CIPAA 1 Land Law - Property without title - purchaser/deceased bought a three-storey shop office from 1st Defendant - 1st Defendant appointed and named purchaser/deceased as the attorney of the property vide a registered power of attorney ('PA') - purchaser/deceased then appointed 1st Plaintiff as the substitute attorney of the property - when purchaser/deceased died, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs were appointed as administrators of the deceased's estate - title of the property was ready to be issued - but developer refused to give consent for direct transfer to 1st Plaintiff - transfer was postponed due to financial constraint - 1st Plaintiff still paid the quit rents and fees due to the property - no objection from 1st Defendant but 1st Defendant who was no longer the owner charged the property to the bank without 1st Plaintiff's consent - the bank then sought for an order for sale of the property as the 1st Defendant defaulted payment of financing facilities - whether a statement contained in a sale and purchase agreement or a PA stating that a certain purchase price has been paid can be accepted as final and conclusive proof when no positive evidence in support is adduced - whether a donor of a PA executed in relation to a landed property is subsequently prevented from dealing with the said property including to create a legal charge under provisions of the National Land Code ('NLC') - whether the interest of the bank is defeasible under s.340 of NLC - Equity and Trust - whether the concept of bare trustee/beneficial ownership can arise where the condition precedents of an agreement have yet to be fulfilled and the underlying transaction has yet completed Tort Law - Does the bank owe a duty of care to the beneficial owner of the land or an unknown/unnamed party? 1 Contract - Sale and purchase of property - Liquidated ascertained damages - cut-off dates for the calculation of LAD - notice of vacant possession - when is vacant possession delivered in cases of invalid notice of vacant possession - when was vacant possession deemed delivered - delay to take delivery of vacant possession - whether buyer can unjustly enrich themselves by refusing to take vacant possession after CFO had been issued to obtain larger amount of LAD 1 - Corporate veil - Joint tortfeasor - Join Liability - Lifting the corporate veil - Piercing the corporate veil - Concealment principle - Evasion principle - Fraud 1 Civil Procedure - Pleading - Omission to plead material facts - Alleged terms to have been breached by the deceased - Shares in consideration for loan in stock broking company - Entire shares were sold by the deceased causing loss and damages to the appellant - Whether the non-pleading of the sham and public policy issues militated against the rule on parties to be bound by their pleadings Contract - Illegality - Agreement - Whether the agreement was a sham - Whether sham agreement a document - Whether consideration or objective is illegal - Section 24(a) of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether agreement void and unenforceable on the ground of public policy - Whether there is conflict of interest - Section 24(e), illustration (g) of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether an agreement has to be illegal before it can be rendered void under Section 24(e) - Whether the appellant has locus standi to sue on the agreement 1 Arbitration - Setting aside - Termination of subcontract - Dispute referred to arbitration - Arbitrator, an engineer knowledgeable in construction industry - Arbitrator ruled that the termination was unlawful and ordered payment of costs for completed work and loss of profit - Whether the threshold to set aside an arbitration award under section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 is ‘very low’ - Whether the said arbitrator could rely on own knowledge and expertise arriving at the decision - Whether the arbitrator upon relying to his own knowledge and expertise breached the natural justice within the meaning of section 37(1)(b)(ii) read together with subsection 2(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether the precept of breach to natural justice extends to the Arbitrator applying his own knowledge and expertise 1 Contract - assignment - absolute assignment - assignment of proceeds to bank as security - effect of absolute assignment - whether creditor’s claim based on trust prevail over absolute assignment - Civil Law Act s 4(3) Trust - Constructive trust - when constructive trust arise by operation of law - unconscionability issue - whether creditor’s claim based on trust prevail over absolute assignment - whether bank held monies in constructive trust for creditor 1 Equity and Trust - Secret Trust - applicability in Malaysia -Art. 160 of Federal Constitution - s.3 of Interpretation Act 1978 and 1967 - s.3 of Civil Law Act - whether secret trust is applicable in a case involving the issue of testamentary capacity of a testator - whether secret trust is contradictory to Malaysian Wills Act 1959 - is it against public policy as it is open to abuse - s.30 of Wills Act 1959 - s.100 of Evidence Act - Difference between two types of secret trust - full and half secret trust - onus of proving secret trust is the ordinary civil standard of proof - balance of probabilities 1 whether a shareholder’s complaint is actionable by way of an oppression action or a derivative action 1 the distinction between an oppression action and a derivative action 1 the historical origins of oppression actions and derivative actiond 1 the rule against reflective loss 1 Section 346 and Section 347 Companies Act 2016 1 the proper plaintiff rule 1 the majority rule principle 1 A claim for recovery brought by the Menteri Besar Selangor (Pemerbadanan) against its former employees for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) that was wrongly paid. 1 Motor insurance - Liability - Insurer's liability against passenger - Passenger obtained judgment for tortious claim for road accident - whether in the circumstances of this case, s.91(1)(b)(bb) of the Road Transport Act 1987 ("RTA") operated to exclude the respondent’s statutory liability under section 96(1) RTA, such that it did not have to pay the appellant the benefit of a judgment he had obtained against the policy-holder at the Sessions Court; - whether s.96(1) RTA permits the beneficiary of a judgment against an insured person to directly enforce the same against an insurer, in this case the respondent, without the need for a further judgment directly against the insurer/respondent by way of a recovery action; and - whether s.96(3) of the RTA provides the sole recourse to an insurer who intends to challenge its liability under s.96(1) of the RTA; and if answered in the affirmative; whether an insurer who has failed to obtain a declaration that an insurance policy was void and/or unenforceable under s.96(3) of the RTA before liability was incurred, is barred from seeking any other relief to challenge or delay the insurer’s liability under s.96(1) of the RTA. 1 The respondent sued the appellant bank for a purported shortfall in the size of the land that it had purchased at a public auction. The claim was dismissed at first instance but allowed on appeal. We reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal upon answering the first question posed on appeal 1 Common questions of law - offence - meter tampering - electricity supply act 1990 - metal clamp - entry and inspection - limitation - exemplary/aggravated damages - energy commission guidelines - remedy. 1 Breach of contract – Companies Act 2016, section 540, section 304 – intent to defraud creditors – fraudulent trading – doctrine of corporate personality – separate legal entity principle – lifting of the corporate veil – whether directors are liable – res judicata – good faith in contract – relational contract 1 recovery of admitted debt - settlement agreement - construction of the agreement - res judicata in the wider sense - 1 Election petition, allegation of bribery and corruption, election offences, section 10,11 and 34 of the Election Offence Act 1954, agent and principal, agency law 1 (i) Whether an advocate and solicitor needs to be given the opportunity to be heard under Section 103D (4) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) when the Disciplinary Board (DB) has already reduced his penalty or punishment; and (ii) Whether the word “adverse” under Section 103D (4) of the LPA should be read in the context of “greater or lesser” under Section 103D (2) of the LPA. 1 Rule 16.11(2) of the ACE [Access, Certainty, Efficiency] Market Listing Requirements (‘AMLR’ or ‘Rules’) compliance with the Listing Requirements scope of the liquidator’s powers and/or duties under the Companies Act 2016 when should Bursa de-list a listed corporation? Can Bursa waive compliance if its Rules? role of director after liquidator is appointed? section 378 of the Capital Markets and Securities Act 2007 section 360 CMSA Section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1 - Minimum wage - Service charge - Social legislation - NWCCA 2011 - MWO 2012 - Trade dispute - Stare decisis - Trust - Basic wage - EA 1955 - Harmonious construction of statutes - IRA 1967 1 failure to obtain consent of the Minister of Finance under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the repeal of the Insurance Act 1996 by the Financial Services Act 2013 whether relevant legislation is the statute in force at the time of entry into the agreement or at the time of performance of the agreement whether Bank Negara’s approval is equal to the approval by the Minister of Finance conditional contracts contingent contracts section 33 of the Contracts Act 1950 restitution pursuant to section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 whether the agreements were void ab initio, but became void and unenforceable when the approval of the Minister of Finance was not obtained whether the agreements could become illegal in the course of performance, by reason of their being performed substantially or in part, without the fulfilment of the condition precedent whether specific performance is available the purpose and object of section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the consequences in law if an illegality arises in the course of performance the issue of the validity or enforceability of an agreement where an illegality arises by reason that the mode of performance adopted by the party performing it is in violation of a statute distinguish between a contract which has as its object an illegal act and a contract whose performance involves an illegal act 1 industrial law 1 industrial dispute 1 trade union activities 1 trade union rights 1 immunity of trade union 1 termination or suspension of the trade union leader 1 distinction between dismissal for carrying out trade union activities and dismissal for misconduct occurring in the context of trade union activities 1 unfair dismissal 1 purposive approach to statutory interpretation 1 interpretation of social legislation 1 sections 2, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19, 20, 26, 59 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA) 1 sections 2, 21, 22 of the Trade Union Act 1959 (TUA) 1 section 8 of the Employment Act 1955 1 the extent of the protection afforded to an employee in relation to acts in his capacity as a trade union officer or member 1 victimisation 1 unfair labour practice 1 whether there is an obligation to exhaust the trade dispute process before issuing a press statement on the nature of such trade dispute 1 misconduct justifying dismissal 1 test for whether an act of alleged misconduct which involves engagement in trade union activities amounts to misconduct warranting disciplinary action or dismissal 1 lawful activities of a trade union 1 are acts or omissions actuated by malice or a bona fide attempt to find a solution to a trade union issue 1 Lim Kien Seng 1 tort-vicarious liability-intentional wrong-between employer and employee-close connection test-in the course of employment 1 COMPANIES - Winding Up - Duties and powers of a liquidator - Proof of Debt - Limitation period - Whether the Limitation Act 1953 applies to Proof of Debt that is accepted and not formally rejected by a Liquidator? - Imposition of Interest - Whether the Liquidators can unilaterally impose interest on the basis of a commercial decision and at a rate unilaterally decided by them despite the absence of any contractual provision and/or agreement by the Appellant? 1 Companies and Corporations — Appeal — Oppression — Purchase of shares of minority shareholder — Whether petitioner’s gross delay in filing ‘oppression petition’ inexcusable and fatal — Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Applicant’s only remedy lay in a derivative action in the name of the 1st Respondent Company to the exclusion of any remedy for minority oppression — Whether in the circumstances of this case, the reflective loss principle had any application — Companies Act 1965 [Act 125], section 181 1 LEGAL PROFESSION: Legal Profession - Whether member of the Malaysian Bar, having moved by way of a motion pursuant to section 64(6) of the LPA 1976 to resolve at the AGM that the Malaysian Bar lodge a complaint against the advocate and solicitor to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to section 94 read with section 99 the LPA 1976, simultaneously move for a resolution to, condemn the advocate and solicitor’s same alleged breach of discipline at the same AGM? LEGAL PROFESSION: Rule of Natural Justice -Whether the Rule of Natural Justice is offended, when predetermination of the culpability of the advocate and solicitor’s conduct is being sought for summary condemnation -Whether the subsequent disciplinary proceedings that is pursued against the advocate and solicitor be tainted with bias and prejudice as a result of the attempted predetermination of the culpability of the advocate and solicitor? TORT: Breach of statutory duty: -Whether the members acted ultra vires the powers of the Malaysian Bar under section 94 read with section 99 of the LPA 1976 when proposing the motion through the Malaysian Bar who, has received the proposed motion and published it to members at large for purposes of the AGM/ TORT: Breach of statutory duty - Duties imposed by statute -Whether motion proposed against the Appellant dated 28.2.2015, amounted to complaint under section 99 of the LPA 1976- Whether the Malaysian Bar acted in breach of statutory duty by tabling the motion for the members deliberation rather referring the motion as a complaint to the Disciplinary Board as statutorily required under section 99 of the LPA 1976? 1 The concept of paternity and legitimacy - the application of S.112 Evidence Act 1950 which deals with legitimacy of children born during a lawful marriage - whether the court has the authority to compel a child to undergo DNA testing to determine paternity - court's power in the context of parens patriae - balancing the child's right to know their biological parents with other welfare considerations. 1 Tan Keen Keong 1 LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976: Solicitors - Criminal breach of trust - Dishonesty - power of the appellant to compensate- members of the public- Compensation Fund-losses arising from acts of dishonesty- advocates and solicitors practicing in partnerships- sole proprietorships-Whether respondents entitled to be compensated for loss from compensation fund - Imposition by guidelines of condition that only losses arising from dishonesty of advocates and solicitors who practice as sole proprietors covered under compensation fund - Whether ultra vires provisions of Legal Profession Act 1976 - Whether s. 111 of Legal Profession Act 1976 applicable to protect appellant from action or legal proceedings 1 1. Bank's duty: investigate illegality in SPA. 2. Bona fide qualification under S.340(3) NLC. 3. Bank's due diligence: prior transactions. 4. Burden of proof: valuable consideration, subsequent purchasers. 5. Conflicting good faith decisions: S.340(3) NLC. 1 Trade Mark – Infringement of – Use of trademark of “ SkyWorld” – use in corporate names and web domain – likelihood to deceive or cause confusion – whether aurally and visibly similar. 1 Passing off – misrepresentation – whether confusion or deception created. 1 sections 16Q and 16M of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act, 1966 - jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of split claims - Clause 1(k) of the Sale and Purchase Agreement - Clause 27 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement - the definition of “ready for connection” - supply of electricity 1 Auspicious Journey / Section 181 CA 1965 / Section 346 CA 2016 / directors' liability / third party's liability / oppression action 1 the High Court invalidated 194 Patent (independent Claim 1) due to the failure to exhibit inventive step - Section 56(2) of the Patent Act - the High Court also automatically invalidated the other 22 dependant claims (Claim 2 - 22) - the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court decision - Whether the invalidation of the independent claim automatically warrants the invalidation of all dependent claims - Whether the validity of the dependant claims ought to be assessed and determined separately from its independent claim - Whether amendments under Patents Act 1983 Prohibited - Sections 56 (3), 57 (2) and 79A (3) of the Patents Act 1 Estate land Illegality of contracts Gula Perak 1 The effect of a half-truth statement in defamation law in Malaysia. 1 Whether Malaysian Courts are jurisdictionally competent to rely on foreign common law in relation to the doctrine of ‘half-truth’ in deciding whether a statement is defamatory or otherwise. 1 Would the provisions of Section 8 & Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 sufficiently provides a basis for the defence of justification and fair comment in a situation where the impugned statement is ‘substantially true’? 1 Would a ‘substantially true’ statement mentioning criminal charges as having been instituted against a plaintiff in a defamation suit be protected by the provisions of section 8 and 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 despite the absence of a mention that the plaintiff was eventually acquitted of those charges? 1 Civil procedure - Judgment and orders - Consequential orders - Whether the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to grant consequential order to give effect the earlier judgment - When does the Court be deemed as functus officio - Whether there is an infringement of functus officio rule - Whether the consequential order amounts to variation 1 Legal Profession — Disciplinary proceedings — Appeal against decision of disciplinary board — Whether Court of Appeal erred in requiring charge to be specifically framed or preferred against advocate and solicitor in disciplinary proceedings — Whether there was any prejudice or denial of natural justice to advocate or solicitor — Whether DB and DC required to frame specific charge against advocate and solicitor — Whether findings of DC and DB in disciplinary proceedings fell within scope of complaint — Whether DB had power to enhance punishment recommended by DC without giving reasons — Whether period of suspension imposed unreasonable and inappropriate 1 Patent - Patents Act 1983 s 12(1), 14(1) - validity of patent - novelty- infringement of patent - inventive steps - inventive concept - whether Court is required to apply and carry out Windsurfing test to determine whether a patented invention is inventive - claimed features - what would the person skilled in the art have understood the patentee to be using the language of the claim to mean - 1 Torrens system-National Land Code - section 89, section 340, proviso to subsection 340(3)-indefeasibility-effect of setting aside of a judgment in default in relation to the title to land-retrospective effect of setting aside-requirement to plead fraud/particulars of a fraud-subsequent purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration-use of land as security for a loan-evidence of repayment of loan-registration of title-duty of investigation on purchaser of land-proper search-duty of intended purchaser to Investigate Vendor's Title 1 Company Law: Ownership- Whether the list of members in the company's register is conclusive evidence of ownership given the full effect of the Federal Court order dated 7.10.2013 Company Law: Meetings- Extraordinary general meeting (EGM) - Validity- Corporate representative requisitioned Board of Directors of company to hold EGM - Whether corporate representative authorised to make requisition - Whether EGM properly and validly requisitioned - Whether EGM and resolutions passed valid in law- Companies Act , s.147(3) Company Law: Directors-Removal-Resolution passed during extraordinary general meeting (EGM) for removal of directors- Whether EGM properly requisitioned and convened - Whether resolution passed during EGM valid in law. 1 [1] This was a common law action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment. This course of action was necessitated by the fact that the judgment, a judgment entered in default, emanated from the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance, and the United Arab Emirates is not a reciprocating country listed under the First Schedule to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 [REJA]. The claim was allowed at the High Court and the decision was affirmed on appeal although the Court of Appeal did vary the award on the interest rate, that it was to run from the date of the judgment in Abu Dhabi instead of from the date of decision at the High Court. 1 The parties in these appeals unfortunately have quite a long chequered litigation history between them spanning over 17 years – see decision of the Federal Court in Ling Peek Hoe & Anor v Ding Siew Ching & Ors [2017] 7 CLJ 641 [Federal Court]. Ultimately, after succeeding in proving that the appellants had defrauded them into parting with their properties, the properties were returned to the respondents. Because the High Court had also ordered that damages be assessed by the Registrar, the parties were back before the High Court on that assessment of damages. These appeals arise from the damages that were assessed. 1 Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Defamation — Libel —Whether reportage is in law a separate defence from qualified privilege or the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism and whether it is to be treated as being mutually exclusive—Whether the defence of reportage being an off-shoot of the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism needs to be pleaded separately from the plea of responsible journalism itself—Whether a defendant is obliged to plead either reportage or responsible journalism and not plead them in the alternative—Whether the defence of reportage which is in law based on an on-going matter of public concern is sufficiently pleaded if it is stated by the defendant that the publications ‘were and still are matters of public interest which the defendants were under a duty to publish— Tort — Defamation — Libel —Whether the proper test to determine if the defence of reportage succeeds is the test of adoption by the journalist of the publication as true and not for the journalist to establish his neutrality by independent verification—In publishing video recordings of statements by third parties in a press conference, whether the mere publication of such videos could be held to be embellishment of the allegations or an embracing or adoption of such statements as the truth by the news media—Whether in an on-going dispute, the impugned article or videos ought to be considered together with previous and continuing publications of the news media on the same subject matter of public concern in determining the defence of reportage—Whether it is proper to award general damages for loss of goodwill and vindication of reputation to a plaintiff company that has independently been subjected to a voluntary winding up by its creditors—Whether loss of goodwill can be recovered as a component of defamatory damages by a plaintiff company that has gone into insolvency 1 Defamation- Public Officer 1 Rights in a trademark by a brand proprietor/owner - trademark infringement-passing off and parallel import under the Trade Mark Act 1976 1 whether a breach of a facility agreement by a bank exonerates the borrower and guarantors from repayment of the outstanding debt 1 whether a bank breached a facility agreement by not making payment when it was served with notice of a pending Mareva injunction proceeding 1 the application of the relation back theory 1 The appellants, husband and wife sued their lawyers for professional negligence and negligent misstatement relating to the preparation of a sales and purchase agreement in 2004. The suit was filed in 2015. The claim was allowed by the High Court after a full trial. The decision was however, set aside on appeal because the claim was held to be time-barred under the Limitation Act of 1953 [Act 254]. The High Court did not deal with this issue although it was pleaded and submitted on by the parties. 1 development agreement, breach of contract, declaratory order, contract terminated, mode of termination not stipulated, error in document central to the case, court’s power to correct misnomer, Nittan’s case, mere clerical error, mutual mistake, clear mistake, falsa demonstratio non nocet, court’s function is to interpret and apply contract which the parties have made for themselves, proviso to section 41 Specific Relief Act 1950, section 56(1) Contracts Act 1950. 1 Trademark 1 Company law — Appeal — Appeal against judgment of Court of Appeal — Appellants claimed for accounts and damages for fraud, forgery and trespass to land and conversion — Whether respondent could have ascertained the actual position of Siva, the first defendant by making the relevant searches — Whether Rule in Turquand’s case apply to a situation where an outsider dealing with the company is deemed to have constructive notice of the identity of the directors and Managers of a company as shown in the Form 49 of the Company — Whether an outsider can rely on the rule in Turquand’s case and the principles of ostensible authority of a person to bind a company where the ‘holding out’ or representation of authority is made solely by the person with no authority 1 Legal Profession — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary Board (DB) /Committee (DC) — Appeal — Legal firm represented orang asli beneficiaries in claim regarding compensation for acquisition of ancestral land — Judgment obtained against Johor State Government — Compensation monies paid out to legal firm but not given to orang asli beneficiaries — Complaint by respondent, an advocate and solicitor on behalf of Saling — Whether DB/DC had jurisdiction to register/set up and inquire into this complaint — Whether proceedings before DB/DC were properly conducted — Principle of proportionality and the principles of sentencing in meeting out sentences —Whether name of 1st appellant as advocate and solicitor ought to be struck off Rolls of Advocates and Solicitors — Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166],section 94(3), section 103 (1A), section 103B (1), Section 103B (2), section 103C 1 Non-delegable duty of care on the homeowner in respect of the negligence of its independent contractor. 1 Company Law - Derivative action - Deadlock company - Equal split of shareholding between directors with opposing views - Whether regarded as deadlock - Whether company was going concern - Whether shareholder could bring derivative action on behalf of deadlock company - Whether deadlock company in liquidation - Test of 'wrongdoer control' - Whether winding up considered as alternative remedy - Whether shareholder could file petition to wind up company on just and equitable grounds - Whether availability of winding up company on just and equitable grounds as alternative remedy disentitled shareholder from opting to bring derivative action on behalf of company - Companies Act 2016 1 Company Law — Appeal —Directors — Breach of fiduciary duties — Claim by company against ex-directors upon allegation of wrongful divestment of company's shareholding in subsidiary — Divestments made to meet urgent liquidity needs of the company — Whether directors acted in breach of fiduciary and statutory duties — Whether breach of duty of care and trust obligations — Whether conspiracy to injure the company — Whether divestments were to detriment of the company — Application of statutory business judgment rule — Whether directors ought to be excused for negligence, default or breach — Companies Act 1965 [Act 125], ss 132(1B) & 354 1 Validity of supplemental agreement under contract law. Extrinsic evidence in proving considerations. Practical benefit test. Variations or contractual agreements. Contractual estoppel and variations agreements. 1 Pembinaan 1 DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA 1 Determination of title or interest by operation of law; The application of the 12 years’ limitation period to charge actions; and The nature and legal effect of the limitation period. 1 UCP-600 - Standard for examination of documents presented under letter of credit - Ocean bill of lading - Freight forwarder bill of lading - Notice of refusal – Reimbursement - the manner of negotiation of the Documents by the negotiating bank - failing to call the Seller as a witness 1 Land Law - Charge - Validity - Chargor obtained title to land by fraud - Allegation of - Whether bank's registered charge over land defeasible - Whether bank obtained deferred indefeasibility of title - Bank denied knowledge of fraudulent or improper acquisition of land - Whether bank subsequent owner of interest in good faith for valuable consideration - Whether bank availed protection under s. 340(3) of National Land Code - Common solicitor - Whether knowledge of solicitor imputed to bank - Whether defeated defeasibility of title 1 i. The law of defence of fair comment in defamation is settled. The ambit of the law requires only comments or inferences of fact forming the substratum of facts that is relied, must be truly stated and existing at least in general terms in order for a defendant to succeed in using the defence. The facts truly stated and existing is a sufficient proof against plaintiff's allegation of malice. 1 ii. The veracity of the facts relied is not required under this law since the defence of fair comment is different as opposed to the defence of justification. 1 Keywords: Law of defamation - defence - fair comment - whether impugned statements are defamatory - distinction between facts and comment - whether impugned statements are comments based on inferences of facts - facts truly stated - facts existing - substratum of facts - opinion honestly made - issue of malice - Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong [1989] 3 MLJ 1 - Hunt v Star Newspaper Co. Ltd [1908] 2 KB 309 - Kemsley v Foot & Ors [1952] 1 All ER 501 - Joseph and others v Spiller and another (Associated Newspaper Ltd and others intervening) [2011] 1 AC 852 1 oppression action merger proposed allotment and issuance of new shares dilution of their shareholding shareholder pre-emptive rights disposals or acquisitions of substantial assets of a company by the directors failure of the directors to procure shareholder approval for a proposed merger share buy-back transactions ultra vires the company's articles of association constitution of a company High Court order validating prior share buy-back transactions rectification of contravention of Companies Act 2016 Companies Act 2016 section 85(1), section 223, section 582(3), section 346, section 67A(1) statutory purposive approach to interpretation section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 commercial sense business efficacy fundamental principle of governance in companies majority rule ‘subject to’ clause illegality 1 Privileged documents — Appeal — Solicitor-client professional privilege— Professional communications — Whether there was breach of responsibility as solicitors — Whether a breach of legal professional privilege gives rise to a cause of action to obtain an injunction to restrain any disclosure of confidential information — Whether the client is confined to lodge a complaint to the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board for breach of solicitor-client privilege — Whether a solicitor sued in his personal capacity, could rely on confidential information reposed in him in his capacity as solicitor as a defence — Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence — Whether for the purposes of an action in court for breach of solicitor/client privilege, it is sufficient for the client to plead the breach without disclosing the contents of the privileged document — Whether section 126 by the use of the words ‘unless with the client’s express consent’ rejects the concept of an implied waiver at common law— Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56] sections 126 and 128 1 Arbitration — Arbitral award — Application to set aside — Section 37 of Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether award was made in excess of jurisdiction — Whether award was in breach of public policy and/or natural justice — Whether the Court of Appeal ruling that the test for the intervention of the court under s. 37 Arbitration Act 2005 as “one where the award suffer from patent injustice and/or where the award is manifestly unlawful and unconscionable” is correct 1 While there are two central issue for this Court's consideration, the real issue here concerns the right of illegitimate children to inherit under the laws of intestacy in this country. 1 Intellectual Property - Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off 1 Residual jurisdiction of High Court - order for assessment of damages - illegality - finding that Plaintiff has failed to prove damages. 1 Reported in [2017] 9 CLJ 273 ARBITRATION: Agreement - Construction - Subject matter of arbitration - Two separate contracts - Whether matters arising under one contract could be arbitrated in arbitration proceeding of the other - Judicial seat for arbitration - Whether indicative of applicable or governing law - Arbitration Act 2005 [Act 646], ss. 18(3), 18(5), 37 ARBITRATION: Arbitral award - Setting aside - International arbitration -Jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal - Challenge to jurisdiction - Whether made 'out of time' - Challenge to status and standing of parties in arbitration - Whether simultaneously raising procedural issue of whether arbitrator had jurisdiction - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 18(3) ARBITRATION: Arbitral award - Setting aside - International arbitration - Application of correct law governing arbitration agreement - UNCITRAL Rules - Proper approach - Whether to be determined by conflict of laws rules - Whether governing law to follow contract - Whether to follow law governing seat - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 18(3), 18(5), 37 1 Enforceability of oral pronouncements by an arbitral tribunal in bifurcated arbitration proceedings governed by the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005) and KLRCA Arbitration Rules, now known as the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2021 (Rules 2021). 1 Companies - Winding-up - Winding-up Order - setting aside winding up order made by deputy registrar in chambers - breach of rule 5(1)(a) of Companies (Winding-up Rules) 1972 - whether the winding up order is null and void - whether High Court has the jurisdiction to set aside perfected order which is seriously defective - whether only judge in open court can make winding up order 1 Locus standi-Penjaga ad Litem tidak lagi diperlukan bagi kanak-kanak yang telah mencapai umur dewasa-wakil litigasi bagi orang yang tidak berkeupayaan (kanak-kanak) hendaklah bertindak melalui peguam-Aturan76 Kaedah 2(3) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012-Kegagalan untuk mematuhi kehandak undang-undang di bawah Aturan 57(1) dan 57(4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Persekutuan 1995 1 Election petition appeal – the sufficiency of the material facts and grounds relied upon in the election petition – whether the requirement of rule 4(1)(b) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 has been complied with? – an omission to name the respondent’s agent 1 Winding up - Disposal of property - Joint liquidators agreed to dispose of properties by way of right of first refusal to a director of company - Right of first refusal was offered and accepted based on valuation report - Liquidator obtained a proposal for properties priced at correct market value - Contributory not agreeable to offer made - Whether the decision of the Court under Section 487 (3) Act 777 (Section 237 (3) CA) is appealable - Whether court was entitled to order properties to be disposed of using a new method for disposal other than what was proposed by liquidators - Whether an objection by a contributory could halt decision of liquidator 1 Tort of defamation - Whether the political party can sue for defamation -Distinction between locus standi and cause of action in defamation action - Section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 - Section 8(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 1 TNB statutory power - scope and limitations of section 38(1) of the Electrical Supply Act 1990 - power of disconnection of electricity - scheme of section 38(1) of the ESA 1990 - tempered meter remedied upon discovery - power lost upon rectification - effect of pre and post amendment of section 38(1) - interpretation of statutory provision - express statutory prohibition/limitation - rule of stare decisis - rule of legal precedence - importance of abiding judicial precedence - whether written statement under section 38(4) can be relied after disconnection - prima facie evidence advantage - loss of revenue 1 the number of times an admiralty writ in rem may be renewed validity of writ renewal of writ Order 6 rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 service of writ on vessel difference between admiralty writs and other civil writs statutory interpretation purpose and object purposive approach anonymising the identities of the parties and the vessel 1 Goh Teng Whoo 1 contempt 1 The three questions of law for which leave to appeal was granted under section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91] revolve around the issue of whether cause papers, from petition to interlocutory applications and associated affidavits, filed under the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164] read with the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 [DMPR] may be filed in the English Language without an accompanying translation in the National Language in view of Registrar’s Circular No. 5 of 1990 [Registrar’s Circular]. The three questions of law are: 1 i. Whether petitions for judicial separation or divorce (matrimonial proceedings) filed pursuant to the provisions of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164] and the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 [DMPR] may be filed in the English Language only 1 ii. If so, whether all other cause papers filed in the matrimonial proceedings may be filed in the English Language only 1 iii. If the answers to either one or both of the questions above are in the negative, whether the filing of the documents in English only is an irregularity that can be cured with the necessary directions by the Court that the said cause papers be filed in Bahasa Malaysia. 1 Company Law - Companies Act 1965 - s 236 - winding up - liquidators - proceedings against liquidator in his personal capacity - application for leave against wound up company’s liquidator in personal capacity - whether applicant who is neither creditor nor contributory of wound up company has locus standi to seek leave to initiate action against liquidator of merger personally - whether liquidator is personally liable in damages for alleged breach of contract - whether breach subsist only between applicant and wound up company - functions of liquidator - whether liquidator owes duty to third party - whether the action sought is against wrong party 1 Civil procedure - Electricity Supply Act 1990 , section 13, section 37(12)(a) and (b), section 16 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 29 - statutory powers - interim injunctive relief – ex-parte interim injunction – inter partes hearing - mandatory injunction – prohibitory injunction – whether a licensee under the ESA 1990 may resort to civil injunctive relief in carrying out its statutory duties regardless of criminal sanction - whether a public authority may resort to injunctive relief in addition to statutory remedies/sanctions where public interest necessitates it - whether inter partes hearing is academic 1 - whether prior leave of court is required to commence proceedings against a court-appointed liquidator 1 - s. 218(1)(i) of the Companies Act 1965 - s 236(3) of the Companies Act 1965 - s. 486(2) of the Companies Act 2016 1 - historical origins of a liquidator - function of a liquidator - basis for requirement of leave 1 - s. 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 1 - stare decisis 1 Proposed scheme of arrangement under section 366(1) of the Companies Act 2016 1 Whether the votes of related-party creditors are to be treated differently from the votes of other creditors in the same class in the scheme of arrangement. 1 Whether the issue of proper classification of creditors should be determined at the Court leave stage 1 Inadequate disclosure in the explanatory statement at the scheme sanction stage 1 Civil Procedure - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) for late delivery of vacant possession - Sale and purchase agreement ('SPAs') - Developers granted extension of time to complete housing project from period of 36 months to 54 months - Whether limitation set in - Whether purchaser's claim time barred. 1 Limitation - when the cause of action arose - whether the cause of action arose after the decision of Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281 or within 6 years after the execution of the SPAs. 1 Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - whether the effect of declaring Regulation 11 (3) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (HDR) ultra vires would apply retrospectively or prospectively - reliance test - does the reliance test apply to Malaysian cases where great reliance was placed on a statutory regime. 1 Principle of Unjust Enrichment - LAD were fully paid to the purchasers - LAD accepted as full and final settlement - would there be unjust enrichment if the claims for LAD are allowed to be calculated retrospectively. 1 Public Law - the Second Actor Theory - whether the Second Actor Theory applies where an innocent third party had relied on an earlier decision made by the public authority which was subsequently declared ultra vires. 1 INNAB SALIL 1 section 3(3), Law reform Act adultery damages whether Muslim can be named as co-respondent judicial separation 1 Civil Procedure - Injunction - Inter parte - Arbitration proceeding - Injunction order to prevent arbitration proceeding from continuing was granted by the High Court to non-party - Whether the Court of Appeal had erred in setting aside the injunction order by the High Court - Whether the requirements of Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 must be met by a party litigant seeking an injunction which would affect his proprietary rights - Whether the arbitration proceeding might adversely affect the proprietary rights of the non-party for its shares in one of the arbitration party - Whether Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 2005 applies to a party litigant who is not a party to an arbitration agreement and/or arbitration proceedings - Whether non-party to the arbitration proceedings should be given the right to have his claim on the shares in the suit heard first and restrain the respondents who are privy to arbitration agreement from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings - Whether there will be conflicting findings if parallel proceedings over same subject matter take place - Whether the Court of Appeal was in error to reject the test in Keet Gerald case and apply the test in J. Jarvis 1 Sections 366 and 368 of the Companies Act 2016 1 Bankruptcy - Bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition against judgment debtor - Multiple petitioning creditors in a single money judgment - Debt fully paid to RHB as one of the petitioning creditors - Application to remove RHB as party of proceedings - Amendment of bankruptcy notice and petition to remove RHB as petitioner - Whether in the case of petition presented by multiple petitioners, could the bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition be amended - Whether the deletion of one or more petitioners be allowed - Section 93(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 and/or Rule 276 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969 - Whether amendment to “written process or proceeding” under Section 93(3) only limited to clerical or minor error - Whether the proposed amendment to the bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition involves substantial amendment - Whether it causes prejudice to the judgment debtor - Whether there is any provision governing withdrawal of co-petitioner as party to bankruptcy proceedings when there are multiple judgment creditors - Section 95 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 - Whether Rule 276 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969 is applicable 1 Breach of contract- Whether a claim for damages for breach of Clause 12 of the statutory sale and purchase contract under Schedule H of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 requires proof of actual loss before damages could be awarded. 1 - Assessment of loss of damages- sufficiency of proof- Whether the High Court was entitled to find that the quotation represented the cost of remedial works as result of the defendant’s breach of contract. 1 Arbitration - Arbitration Act 2005, s10 - whether the arbitration agreement or the proceedings in court obtained despite the agreement to arbitrate took precedence - can judgment in default be sustained when party is bound by valid arbitration clause - whether court should consider the merits or existence of disputes raised by defendant in hearing the application to set aside JID where parties are bound by valid arbitration clause - whether court could intervene dispute between parties who had agreed on arbitration clause 1 whether withdrawal of the Creditor’s Petition will terminate all bankruptcy proceedings including the bankruptcy notice 1 whether an act of bankruptcy could be declared despite the failure to dispose of the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice 1 whether the Creditor’s Petition could be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh as it had been filed due to an earlier erroneous ruling by the Registrar that an act of bankruptcy had occurred 1 the purpose and intent of the Insolvency Act and its Rules 1 the purpose of bankruptcy proceedings 1 the nature of bankruptcy proceedings 1 whether the error in the Creditor’s Petition is substantive, going to the root of the act of bankruptcy or to the viability of the creditor’s petition, or an error that is capable of remedy 1 notice of new arguments taken at the oral hearing and the filing of new authorities 1 good practice, fair play and substantive justice 1 Rule 93 of the Insolvency Rules 1 section 6(7) of the Insolvency Act 1 -Joint liability -Joint and several liability -s.46 EPF Act 1991 -s.44 Contracts Act 1950 1 AVIATION 1 Bankruptcy - Set aside - Bankruptcy Notice - Whether JC can commence bankruptcy action - JC obtained JDS Order against JD - JD complied with the Order - Whether BN null and void - BN contradicts the amount awarded in the final judgment - Bankruptcy Act 1967 [Act 360], s 5(1) Civil Procedure - Judgments - Finality of judgment - JDS proceedings against JD - whether the Order for instalment payments under JDS proceedings constitutes a variation or modification of the original Judgment - Whether BN which is founded on the original judgment is invalid - Whether bankruptcy notice liable to set aside 1 Bankruptcy - Notice - Setting aside - Whether JC can commence bankruptcy action - JC obtained JDS Order against JD - JD complied with the Order - Whether BN null and void - BN contradicts the amount awarded in the final judgment - Bankruptcy Act 1967 [Act 360], s 5(1) Civil Procedure - Judgments - Finality of judgment - JDS proceedings against JD - whether the Order for instalment payments under JDS proceedings constitutes a variation or modification of the original Judgment - Whether BN which is founded on the original judgment is invalid - Whether bankruptcy notice liable to set aside 1 Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused convicted for offence of trafficking dangerous drugs and sentenced to death - Drugs found in two rooms - Accused's fingerprints and DNA found on incriminating items - Whether accused had care and management of premises - Defence of no knowledge - Whether probable - Whether accused had knowledge, exclusive control and custody of drugs - Whether there was misdirection by trial judge in handling and applying presumptions - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a) Evidence - Adverse inference - Failure to call witness - Drugs found in rooms - Whether accused had exclusive care and management of premises - Whether accused had knowledge, exclusive control and custody of drugs - Whether accused tenant of premises - Whether prosecution failed to call real tenant of premises - Whether adverse inference ought to be invoked for failure to call witness - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) 1 Criminal Law — Appeal — Kidnapping (first charge) — Common intention — Abduction, wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement for ransom — Evidence of PW18 and PW27 confirmed the fact that the deceased was restrained — Ransom demanded for release of victim — Evidence adduced by the prosecution through PW26, PW27, PW37 and PW18 respectively — Overwhelming circumstantial evidence to prove that appellants committed offence — Kidnapping Act 1961 [Act 365], section 3; Penal Code [Act 574], section 34 Criminal Law — Appeal — Murder (2nd charge) — Common intention — Cause of death was due to the facial injuries and aspiration of blood and the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death — Evidence of PW18 — Overwhelming circumstantial evidence to prove that appellants committed offence — Penal Code [Act 574], sections 34, 300, 302 Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Kidnapping and murder — No direct evidence —Identification evidence — DNA evidence — Whether evidence pointed irresistibly to guilt of appellants — Defence of alibi — Whether Dolphine was the perpetrator of the said two offences — Whether defence was an afterthought —Kidnapping Act 1961 [Act 365], section 3; Penal Code [Act 574],sections 34 & 302 Evidence — Information leading to fact discovered — Admissibility depends on voluntariness — Whether information given by accused distinctly related to what was discovered — Whether element of concealment fulfilled — Whether inadmissibility of information supplied by accused affects admissibility of evidence of his subsequent conduct — Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56], sections 8 & 27 Evidence — Presumptions — Adverse inference — Failure by prosecution to call witness —Whether prosecution case proven without any gaps — Whether adverse inference arose — Evidence Act 1950[Act 56], section 114(g) 1 Criminal Procedure — Forfeiture — Appeal — Appeal against setting aside order of forfeiture — High Court made forfeiture order — Prosecution relied heavily on para 32 of affidavit of investigating officer — Whether contents of affidavit satisfied criteria under O 41 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Whether High Court correct in relying on affidavit — Whether prosecution case proven on balance of probabilities— Whether respondent rebut the evidence against him on the balance of probabilities — Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 [Act 613], ss. 3, 4(1), 32(2)(b), 40, 50(1), 55(3), 56(1)(4), 56(4),61(2), 70(1); Penal Code [Act 574], s. 420;Evidence Act, s. 90A(2);Rules of Court 2012, O. 41 r. 5(1) 1 Constitutional law - the validity of impugned legislation - the sentence of mandatory death penalty for trafficking under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act and section 302 of the Penal Code for murder - Whether the said provisions were unconstitutional - Whether the said provisions can be struck down for violating Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 121 of the Federal Constitution - Whether death penalty is the proportionate punishment for the offence - Whether alternative punishments should be made available and the Court be given discretion to impose suitable punishment - Whether the Court should simply implement punishment prescribed by Parliament without question 1 Constitutional law - constitutionality of statute - A 5, 8, 121 FC - s 37A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - whether the use of double presumptions under s 37A is constitutional - whether insertion of s 37A contravenes the principle of separation of powers - whether s 37A violates Articles 5 & 8 of FC - whether the use of ‘deemed possession’ under s 37(d) of DDA denied the accused of fair trial - presumption of innocence - whether s 37A violates presumption of innocence - whether requirement of the accused to rebut the presumptions violates the presumption of innocence - whether the decision in Muhammed bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 MLJ 273 remained valid - whether trafficking presumption could only be invoked if trial court had found evidence of possession affirmatively - duty of the court to adopt prismatic approach in interpreting fundamental rights - doctrine of proportionality on statutory presumptions -- whether double presumptions satisfy the requirement of proportionality - whether enactment of s 37A intrudes into judicial power 1 Whether there was a delay by the police Investigating Officer in submitting the complete investigation report to the Inquiry Officer- section 3(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 1 Habeas corpus National security Federal Constitution (FC) Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA) Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) Art 5 (2) FC Section 365 POCA Section 10 (2) POCA Section 19A POCA Section 4(2) POCA Section 4A POCA rule of law individual liberty preventive detention Art.149 FC Art.5 FC Art.9 FC Art.10 FC Art.13 FC Art.8 FC Art.151 FC Art.4 FC Section 15B POCA delay Zaidi Kanapiah referred Tamilarasan overruled Chua Kian Voon upheld Selva Vinayagam referred Lei Meng & 24 other Appeals referred Maria Chin analysed Awang Sari bin Lasikan referred Mohammad Azanul Haqimi referred Mohamad Ezam referred Prevention of Crime (Advisory Board Procedure) Regulations 2014 1 SECTION 4 POCA 1959 1 Section 4 of POCA- whether unconstitutional Preliminary objections on technicalities- whether contrary to mandatory provision of Article 5(2) FC Whether the detention is Mala fide Common Gaming Houses Act 1953- whether come within Article 149(1)(a) FC Whether failure to adhere to guidelines as stated in Zaidi Kanapiah's case considered as procedural non compliance and renders the detention under Section 4 POCA unlawful 1 The appellant filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The application was dismissed by the learned Judge who agreed with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Federal Counsel [SFC]; that such writ does not lie where the corpus is not or is no longer in physical detention 1 OUSTER CLAUSE (SECTION 15B OF POCA) 1 Rovin Joty 1 online gambling simpliciter, POCA, non-citizen, Article 151 Federal Constitution, preventive detention legislation, Article 149(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution, habeas corpus 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Preventive Detention - Detention under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act") - Habeas Corpus - Appeal against - Legality of Detention Order - Whether the Detention Order issued is ex facie irregular by reason it did not fulfill the requirements of Art. 149 FC - Delay by the Investigation Officer and Inquiry Officer - Whether failure of the Investigation and Inquiry Officer to commence investigation and submit report to the Minister with convenient speed tainted the legality of the Detention Order - Request for recorded statement by the Inquiry Officer - Whether there is any requirement for recorded statement under the Act. 1 Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Federal Counsel for the respondents, we unanimously allowed the appeal on two grounds and proceeded to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the immediate release of the appellant. We hereby elaborate on the two grounds 1 CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Sections 50(1), 51(1) & 61(4) - Movable and immovable properties seized upon order by Public Prosecutor - Claim for legal fees by counsel representing client - Whether legal fees could be paid from seized properties - Whether counsel has legitimate legal interest in client's properties - Whether counsel bona fide third party 1 Forfeiture of property where there is no prosecution - section 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - standard of proof to prove predicate offence - cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code or unlicensed or illegal deposit taking - appellate interference on findings of fact. 1 This appeal deals with an issue which frequently vexes the Court in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, that is, when should an order for discharge amounting to an acquittal under section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code [CPC] be granted. 1 Motions to adduce additional or fresh evidence, anti-money laundering, criminal breach of trust, abuse of power 1 Motion to adjourn the hearing of the appeals, anti-money laundering, criminal breach of trust, abuse of power 1 Application to recuse Chief Justice, anti-money laundering, criminal breach of trust, abuse of power 1 Additional evidence, recusal, adjournment, anti-money laundering, criminal breach of trust, abuse of power 1 Section 302 of the Penal Code 1 Circumstantial evidence 1 Whether no specific or express finding by the trial judge under which limb of section 300 of the Penal Code that the respondent was found guilty affects the prosecution’s case in proving the offence of murder under section 302 of the same Code. 1 Criminal procedure - Stay of proceedings - Section 64 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (‘CJA’) - Court of Appeal (‘COA’) granted an order to stay the proceedings pending disposal of the accused’s appeals to Federal Court - Appeals for criminal application dismissed by COA - Whether COA was right to allow stay of criminal proceedings - Whether COA has jurisdiction to grant stay of criminal proceeding - Whether exceptional or unusual circumstances exist - Whether there is any pending proceeding before the COA could make an interim order - Pre-requisite under Sections 44(1) and 80(1) of the CJA - Whether the stay order is a nullity 1 Constitutional law - Gag order - Article 126 FC - S 13 Court Judicature Act - whether Court has jurisdiction to issue gag order - whether court should adopt prismatic construction of A 126 FC and S 13 CJA - whether court should grant gag order when the country has abolished trials by jury - test for gag order - whether appellant had fulfilled the test - whether there is real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial - whether it is necessary and proportionate to grant gag order 1 Criminal Procedure - S 51A CPC - S 30(9) MACC Act; S 40 AMLATFAPUA - pre-trial production - non-obstante clauses - whether the prosecution is bound to supply documents not provided for under S 51A CPC - whether prosecution can tender ‘non-obstante clause’ documents during trial 1 Defence on insanity - legal and medical insanity - Section 84 of the Penal Code - Section 85(2)(b) of the Penal Code - Acquittal without defence - legal standards for insanity defence 1 The presumption under section 50(1) of the MACC Act 2009, upon establishing the receipt of the money, it is presumed that the money was received corruptly on account of the matters set out in the charge. Once the presumption triggers, the burden is shifted to the respondent to rebut, on the balance of probabilities, that the money was not received corruptly as a reward. 1 The credibility of a witness is best determined by the trial judge, who has the advantage of audio-visual evidence and can assess the witness's demeanour. Unless the assessment is plainly wrong and made against the weight of the evidence presented, the finding on credibility should not be disturbed by the appellate court. 1 Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Appellant convicted for drug trafficking and sentenced to death 1 —Whether the learned trial judge erred when she did not indicate at the end of the case for the prosecution whether the defence was called on presumed trafficking or on direct trafficking 1 —Whether the learned trial judge erred when she did not consider all the evidence led by the appellant in breach of section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code 1 yapsdz 1 Sentences of whipping – whether consecutive or concurrent – Majority Judgement. multiple sentences of whipping concurrent or consecutive sentences of whipping concurrent sentencing the one transaction principle the totality principle the principle of proportionality Art 5(1) and Art 8 Federal Constitution fairness in state action and in the law punishment commensurate with the crime the purpose of the Criminal Procedure Code interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code consistent with the Federal Constitution constitutional supremacy construing legislation in line with the Federal Constitution intention of Parliament absence of words to infer intention of Parliament sections 288(1) and (5) Criminal Procedure Code historical evolution of concurrent sentencing misapprehension of case law section 289 Criminal Procedure Code 1 CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Admissibility of evidence of conduct of appellant - Whether appellant in possession of dangerous drugs - Presumptions of possession and trafficking - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37(d), (da), 37A - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 8 (2), Admissibility - Conduct - Whether evidence of appellant’s conduct in picking up bag containing dangerous drug and handing it over to the police officer amounted to a statement and is therefore admissible 1 Section 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - the duty of the prosecution to make available to the defence any witness whose evidence may assist the accused in his or her defence - the failure of the prosecution to make them available to the defence - Section 6 of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - section 39A (2) of DDA 1952. 1 Criminal Law - Murder - s. 300(a) of Penal Code - Death sentence involving children - Detention at the pleasure of DYMM Sultan of Selangor pursuant to s.97(2)(b) of the Child Act 2001 (Act 611) Criminal Law - common intention - s.34 of Penal Code - nexus to offence - not necessarily physical appearance - concurrent findings of facts by courts below - credibility of witnesses Evidence Law - s. 133 of Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56) - illustration of s.114 of Evidence Act - corroboration of accomplice evidence - it is trite law that an accused person may be convicted even on an uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice - it is totally irrelevant that the accomplice is not charged together with the accused - evidence not challenged in cross- examination needs no corroboration even when it comes from an accomplice unless it is so incredible that no reasonable tribunal would accept - Browne v Dunn (184) 6 R 67 - It is not necessary that the corroboration should be of actual commission of the crime but suffice if there is independent evidence of the relevant circumstances connecting the accused with the crime - Datuk Haji Harun bin Idris v PP [1976] 1 LNS 184 1 Drug trafficking charge - section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - the net weight of the drugs - The amount or quantity of the dangerous drugs involved in the offence/offences cannot be quantified or scientifically determined - medicinal cannabis - Section 9 of DDA 1952. 1 CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER. 1 Fair Trial Incompetent Counsel Acquittal and Discharge Principles on Retrial 1 Criminal Law — Offences — Murder — Mens rea element of murder under clause (c) of section 300 of the Penal Code— Whether necessary to prove that the accused intended to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death 1 Criminal law - drug trafficking - presumption under section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act - appellant were convicted and sentenced to death - Whether the judge has to make a minimum or maximum evaluation of evidence to render prima facie case has been established - Threshold to be applied at the end of the prosecution’s case - Section 180(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code - Credible evidence - Whether the prosecution is required to prove each offence’s ingredient by credible evidence under section 180(4) of the Criminal of Code - Whether it would be unsustainable when section 180(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code be read in exclusion of presumptions 1 Federal Court – Inherent powers – Review – Power to review own decision –Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r. 137- whether the refusal to grant an adjournment of the main appeals was unjust - whether a miscarriage of justice would have been occasioned to the prosecution if the adjournment was granted- Application for discharge by counsel for accused person – Whether court could refuse application –Whether discharge would have left accused person unrepresented – Whether court possesses inherent jurisdiction to ensure fulfilment of mandate to administer justice– Whether court has supervisory jurisdiction and authority to exercise inherent and supervisory control over counsel- Whether decision in breach of rules of natural justice- Right to a fair trial -Refusal by counsel for defence to make submissions on merits of appeal –Whether refusal justified – Whether counsel given opportunity to submit by court- Whether conduct equivalent to ‘not appearing to support’ appeals – Criminal Procedure Code, s. 313(2) 1 Review Rule 137 Breach of natural justice 1 Criminal Procedure - Criminal - Conviction on a lesser charge - the High Court convicted and sentenced the accused with death penalty - the Court of Appeal affirmed the sentenced and conviction - the Federal Court found the murder charge not proven and convicted the accused on culpable homicide not amounting to murder - the accused was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment pursuant to section 304(a) of the Penal Code - Accused applied to set aside the sentenced - Rules 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court - Whether the Federal Court has erred in sentencing the accused under section 304(a) instead of section 304(b) of the Penal Code - Whether the Federal Court had the power to re-evaluate the facts before deciding whether a conviction is safe - section 86 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1 Constitutional law - Article 121 - Islamic banking - Section 57 of CBMA 2009 - ruling of SAC is binding on High Court - whether Section 57 vested judicial power to the Shariah Advisory Council - whether section 57 CBMA is valid and constitutional 1 Constitutional Law - Constitutional questions - s 84 of Court Judicature Act 1964 - Whether the appointments of the second respondent and third respondent as Chief Justice of Malaysia and the President Court of Appeal respectively after their mandatory retirements are valid and constitutional - Federal Constitution Article 122,122B,125 - Constitution of Federal Court - Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Courts, Tenure of office and remuneration of judges of Federal Court - Position of Conflict - Challenge of bias - Direct interest - Real possibility of bias - Whether the constitutional questions rendered academic - Public Law exception 1 Constitutional law - Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 S 56,57 - Shariah Advisory Council - whether section 56,57 of CBMA breaches Federal Constitution for having the effect of vesting judicial power in the Shariah Advisory Council - whether the provisions violates doctrine of separation of power - whether Parliament can set up a legislative mechanism in relation to Islamic financial business - whether Court is bound to advice by SAC - whether the impugned provision intrudes onto judicial power 1 Constitutional law - Legislation - Constitutionality - Sections 56 and 57 of the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 (CBMA) - Whether unconstitutional and void - Whether in contravention of Article 74 of the Federal Constitution (‘FC’) read together with Ninth Schedule for vesting judicial power in the Shariah Advisory Council (‘SAC’) to ascertain Islamic law - Whether in contravention of Article 121 of FC for vesting judicial power in the SAC - Whether in contravention of Article 8 of FC for denying a litigant substantive due process - Whether the court entitled to admit and consider expert evidence concerning shariah matter relating to Islamic financial business Constitutional law - Judicial power - Civil court - Whether civil court possesses judicial power to decide on Shariah matters - Matter of Islamic banking - Whether SAC as a non-judicial entity possesses judicial power - Whether SAC is the sole authority for ascertainment of Islamic law for purposes of Islamic financial business -Whether ruling solely confined to Shariah issues - Whether the SAC final decision is a ruling and not determination - Whether SAC usurps judicial power of civil court by violating the doctrine of separation of powers - Whether SAC ruling binding on civil court 1 [1] In the present case, having examined section 61A by itself and in context earlier, we find that judicial power has in no way been abrogated, curtailed or subjugated to the Legislature by any means whatsoever. The use of the phrase ‘prima facie evidence’ by no means has the conclusive effect as erroneously proposed by the appellants. In all cases, the defence retains the ability to call rebuttal evidence and the Judiciary retains the obligation to evaluate all the evidence at the close of the prosecution’s case sufficient to warrant a conviction before calling for defence. [2] We are inclined to accept the respondent’s submission that when depositions under section 61A are tendered as evidence, even as prima facie evidence of any facts stated in the deposition, the prosecution is not absolved of its obligation to prove a prima facie case including but not limited to adducing further evidence that is available or in certain cases, corroborating the depositions. [3] Insofar as the right to a fair trial is concerned, it is our view that section 61A has fairly triangulated the rights of the accused, the victims and public interest. [4] Reading section 61A in context, we find that there is in the first place, no discrimination against the appellants as regards sections 52 and 61A. The two provisions are entirely different provisions catering for different procedures for different circumstances which have been explained above. In any case, the basis for the application of section 61A over section 52 is clear in that the former applies when a witness can no longer be found by virtue of them having been deported pursuant to the applicable provisions of Act 155. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE: Constitutionality of Section 61A of Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (“ATIPSOM”) – Section 30 and Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - separation of power – whether Section 61A of ATIPSOM is unconstitutional? – prima facie evidence - judicial power – Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution – Fundamental Liberties – Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution – Fair Trial – procedural and substantive fairness – cross-examination of the deponents – Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution – principle of proportionality – Section 52 of ATIPSOM - 1 [1] Section 498 of the Penal Code is an archaic and anachronistic provision which comes from an unfortunate bygone Victorian era when women were regarded as the personal property of men or even an extension of men not unlike how slaves were treated for a long time until abolished in the last century. [2] Section 498 is unconstitutional for the reason that it unlawfully discriminates only on the ground of gender which is violative of Article 8(2). [3] Constitutional validity deals with the objective compliance of the impugned law vis-à-vis the FC. And when it concerns pre-Merdeka law, the Judiciary is only objectively empowered to modify the law to the extent of rendering the law valid. Repeal is the last option where the only way to render the law valid would be to delete it. CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE: Whether Section 498 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental principle of equality governed under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution? – archaic and paternalistic law – pre-Merdeka law – complaint made by the husband of the woman - women as their husband’s property – seduction by one man towards a married woman - woman’s autonomy and dignity – gender discrimination – gender equality – protection of the rights of the husband and not those of wife – gender bias – Article 162(6) of the Federal Constitution – modification of pre-Merdeka law into accord with the Federal Constitution – modification of the law – repeal and amendment of the law – 1 Constitutional reference (‘Reference’) filed pursuant to sections 84 and 85 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (‘CJA 1964’) - Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. 1 Seksyen 26A dan Seksyen 26D Akta Pemerdagangan Orang dan Anti Penyeludupan Migran 2007; Seksyen 387, 388, 389, 391 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah; Seksyen 13 (2) (c) dan jadual pertama akta Kesalahan Keselamatan 1 Seksyen 26A dan Seksyen 26D Akta Pemerdagangan Orang dan Anti Penyeludupan Migran 2007; Seksyen 387, 388, 389, 391 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah; Seksyen 13(2) (c) dan jadual pertama akta Kesalahan Keselamatan 1 Article 128(1)(b) Federal Constitution - meaning of the words 'dispute' and 'between' breach of Articles of the Federal Constitution Article 112C Federal Constitution Article 112D Federal Constitution section 2 of Part IV of the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution definition of 'state' under Article 160 of the Federal Constitution Sabah Special Grant Review of Sabah Special Grant exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court locus standi to commence judicial review threshold standing locus standi broadly construed justiciability 1 Section 117(b) of the Perlis Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment unilateral conversion of children to Islam whether the Federal Court case of Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho V Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors and other appeals [2018] MLJU 69 is limited to Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur, and Labuan, and does not apply to Perlis Dahlia Dhaima bt Abdullah v Majlis Agama Islam Selangor and another appeal [2024] 5 CLJ conversion of minors the authoritative text of the Federal Constitution is the English version whether a Certificate of Conversion to the religion of Islam shall be conclusive proof of the facts stated therein reading of the word ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution a decision made by the Syariah Courts outside their jurisdiction can be set aside by the Civil Courts consent / agreement cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court or tribunal the distinction made in Rosliza bt Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] MLJU 105 between ab initio and renunciation cases 1 Election Law - Sabah State Constitution - Art. 7 (1), 10(2) & (4) - whether the Tuan Yang Terutama Yang di-Pertua Negeri Sabah is conferred with the discretion to determine whether a validly appointed Chief Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly or to dismiss the validly appointed Chief Minister - whether in the absence of a concession or a request for dissolution, a vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly is nonetheless required as in Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg & Tawi Sli [1966] 1 LNS 186 before treating the Chief Minister as having resigned under Sabah Constitution - whether a vote of confidence as opposed to a vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly for the purported new Chief Minister is constitutional pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Sabah Constitution 1 Civil Procedure — Leave to appeal — Application to review dismissal of leave to appeal by leave panel — Whether it is an appropriate case for the Federal Court to exercise its inherent power to review and set aside the decision of the leave panel under r. 137, Rules of the Federal Court 1995 — Whether the decision falls within the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances — Whether threshold requirement under Section 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 has been fulfilled 1 Civil procedure - Contempt of court - Offence of scandalising contempt against the court - by providing material for two articles - Allegation that the expungement by the Federal Court of several paragraphs in Court of Appeal’s dissenting judgment was highly irregular - Whether the impugned statements pose a real risk of undermining public confidence to the Federal Court in administration of justice - Whether the impugned statements amount to fair criticism - Whether made in good faith and within the limits of reasonable courtesy - Whether there has been rational and cogent basis for the grave allegations against the Federal Court and thereby the Judiciary - Whether scandalising contempt has been made out beyond reasonable doubt Civil procedure - Contempt of court - Mens rea - Offence of scandalising contempt against the court - Whether intention of the author has to be proven - Whether stringent mens rea test suitable in local context - Whether there is any reason to depart from Malaysian common law practice requiring subjective intention of the alleged contemnor to interfere with the administration of justice - Whether the impugned statement caused an undermining impression of public confidence upon ordinary reasonable reader of average intelligence against the administration of justice 1 leave to appeal - reference application under section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution - matters to be considered in reference application - consistency challenge - competency challenge - exercise of discretion to refer or not to refer by the High Court - Federal Court power to remit or not to remit - constitutionality of the proclamation of emergency and emergency ordinances 1 Section 46 of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 - joint and several liability of company's directors - proper party - institution of a suit against directors independent of the company. 1 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Preliminary Objection – application under subsection 97(4) to discharge the decision of a single Judge under subsection 97(3) – whether burden is on the applicant to show reason. 1 Contempt of Court - Decision on application to set aside leave order granted pursuant to O. 52 r. 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 - grounds for setting aside - Notice pursuant to O.52 r.2B - non-compliance is not fatal - the right forum - Federal Court - as impugned comments implicate the judiciary as a whole - does not necessarily have to commence at High Court - Application dismissed Evidence Law - section 114A of Evidence Act - presumption of fact on publication - impugned comments were contemptuous - prima facie publication on news portal 1 Anwar Ibrahim 1 Moving to the last issue about the lack of reasoned grounds of judgment, we understand the applicant was fully aware of the reasons for the decision of the majority at the material time. What the applicant does not have are full written reasonings of the full bench. With respect, we again disagree that that reason is of itself sufficient for our exercise of discretion to review the earlier decision. 1 REVIEW RULE 137 DE FACTO DOCTRINE NO GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT FINALITY OF LITIGATION 1 Arbitration - Arbitral Proceedings - Preliminary Objection - Issue on international or domestic arbitration - Final award - Question of Law - Domestic International Arbitration - Whether the arbitration is an international arbitration or a domestic arbitration - Court determined what constituted an international arbitration within meaning of Section 2 of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether the Act or Malaysian Law recognizes a domestic international arbitration given that the phrase “domestic international arbitration” is found in Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether section 42 of the Arbitration Act automatically applies to an arbitration governed by the laws of Malaysia notwithstanding that one or more parties to the arbitration may be foreign - Whether decision of Court of Appeal in Ajwa For Food Industries Co (Migop), Egypt v Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd & another appeal [2011] MLJU 1537 is correct - Arbitration Act 2005 ss 2 & 42 1 Judicial review, constitutional judicial review, statutory judicial review, jurisdiction of Syariah Courts. 1 Original jurisdiction Incompetency challenge Inconsistency challenge Setting aside leave granted by single judge 1 Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Federal Court — Articles 4(4) and 128(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution — Constitutionality — Incorporation (State Legislatures Competency) Act 1962 (Act 380) and Chief Minister of Penang (Incorporation) Enactment 2009 (Enactment 9) Constitutional Law — Federal and State laws — Constitutionality — Land acquisition by Penang State Government — Land alienation to body corporate established under Enactment 9 — Whether Enactment 9 or alternatively sections 3, 4 and 5 of Enactment 9 is/are invalid and void — Whether Enactment 9 relates to a matter within the legislative competence of the Penang State Legislature — Whether Act 380 or alternatively section 3 and item 5 of the First Schedule is/are invalid and void — Whether Act 380 relates to a matter within the legislative competence of Parliament 1 EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT – Article4(3), 4(4) and Article 128(1) of the Federal Constitution – dispute where the petition seeks a declaration that a law is invalid on the ground that Parliament or the State Legislature of any State had no power to make the law in question - sections 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and/or 48 of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (I) [Enactment 14] Enactment 2019 – Item 1 of the State List – Item 4 of the Federal List – Precepts of Islam – General criminal law 1 Constitutional law – Legislation – validity of legislation – whether Parliament has power and/or competent to enact any provisions that regulates matters relating to Islamic Medicine and Malay Traditional Medicine - sections 25 and 26 of the Act - Islamic Medicine and Malay Traditional Medicine (ACT 775) - Challenge Based On Article 38(4) Of The Federal Constitution - The Doctrine Of Pith And Substance - 1 Constitutional law - Legislature - Whether Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 (‘s 28’) enacted by Selangor State Legislature had legislated a matter in the Federal List in Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution - Item 4(h) of the Federal List - Section 377A of the Penal Code - Whether applicant ought to be granted leave pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Federal Constitution in challenging the constitutionality of s 28 - Whether applicant has fulfilled the requirements under Article 4(3) for leave to be granted on the ground of lack of competency by Selangor State Legislature to enact s 28 1 Trademarks - Patent - Validity - the High Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ infringement claim against the Defendant and allowed the Defendant’s counterclaim counterclaimed invalidity of patent - the High Court invalidated 194 Patent (independent Claim 1) due to the failure to exhibit inventive step - Section 56(2) of the Patent Act - the High Court also automatically invalidated the other 22 dependant claims (Claim 2 - 22) - the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court decision - Whether the invalidation of the independent claim automatically warrants the invalidation of all dependent claims - Whether the dependant claims has independent elements - Whether the validity of the dependant claims ought to be assessed and determined separately from its independent claim - Whether the 194 Patent is one invention only - Section 26 of the Patent Act - Whether all the dependant claims can fulfil requirements under Regulation 13 of the Patent Regulations 1 Land law - National Land Code S 214A (1)(2)(4) - sale and purchase of estate land - conditional contract for sale and purchase of estate land - sale must be approved by Estate Land Board - no prior approval obtained from the Board - whether condition precedent imposed contravenes section 214A(1) NLC - legislative intent - reading the section as a whole 1 Defamation 1 LIM GUAN ENG 1 Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Trafficking of dangerous drugs - High Court accepted Appellant’s defence of innocent carrier - Appellant was acquitted by High Court - Court of Appeal reversed the decision of High Court - Whether Court of Appeal erred in reversing the findings and judgment of High Court - Whether Court of Appeal misread the reasoning in Duis Akim - Section 182A Criminal Procedure Code - Whether Court of Appeal failed to consider evidence of expert opinion - Whether Court of Appeal erred in making appellate intervention - Whether the trial judge was correct in finding the presumption of knowledge has been rebutted by the Appellant - Whether defence of innocent carrier proven - Section 37(d) and Section 39B(1)(a) and (2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 1 Criminal Law - Internal Security Act 1960 s8B(1) and 8C - Minister issued extension order - appellant claiming for damages for false imprisonment - whether the High Court and Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to award damages - whether court has discretion to allow or not question of law raised for the first time on appeal - whether the whole proceeding of the court was a nullity 1 Civil procedure - Appeal - Appeal against the decision of Court of Appeal - jurisdiction - National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963 ss 15, 27(3), 29(1) - the appeal relate to the issue of the sanctity and validity of an Order of the High Court at Pulau Pinang made in 1995 (the 1995 Order) - the challenge was brought upon as a defence to a trespass suit filed ten years after the Order was made - Whether the 1995 Order is an illegal order made in excess of jurisdiction and liable to be set aside - whether a party seeking to challenge a sealed and perfected Order of the Court was required to take an active step in filing - whether defendants could challenge the 1995 Order by raising it in a defence 1 Election petition - Appeal - Appeal on the decision of election judge - the High Court dismissed petitioner’s preliminary objection and allowed the first respondent’s preliminary objection - petitioner appealed on the dismissal of his preliminary objection (Appeal No. 35) - the petitioner’s appeal on the decision of election judge upholding the first respondent’s preliminary objection (Appeal No. 40) - whether the election judge misinterpreted Article 118 of the Federal Constitution - jurisdiction under Article 121 of the Federal Constitution or Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act - Whether the election judge has erred in deciding that Rule 9 of the Election Petition Rules does not applicable to respondent - Whether the petition had complied with Rules 4(1)(b) and 4(4) of the Election Petition Rules 1 Order for discovery - section 7 of the Bankers’ Books (Evidence) Act 1949 1 Banking Law — Banker and customer — Joint account — Bank honoured forged cheque presented by surviving joint account holder (“survivor”) - Whether survivorship clause conferred survivor beneficial ownership of the money in joint account — Whether bank absolved its liability under joint account by adhering to survivorship clause — Whether payment made pursuant to survivorship clause by way of a forged cheque and in breach of s 24 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1949 constituted a valid discharge by bank - Whether bank had contractual relationship with respondents — Whether respondents had cause of action over joint account to which they were not parties — Bills of Exchange Act 1949 ss 24 and 73A Evidence Law — Proof — Admissibility — Admissibility of oral evidence — Whether oral evidence could be admitted to contradict written term of banking contract that joint account was personal account — Whether Court of Appeal erred in admitting oral evidence 1 Insurance law - insurance policy applied and issued after accident - whether the insurance policy was void and unenforceable - whether insurance policy take effect from time of issuance of cover - whether insurance policies are special contracts Insurance law - failure to disclose the occurrence of accident during insurance application - uberrimae fidei or utmost good faith - whether the insured breach the duty to disclose under Section 150(1) of Insurance Act 1996 - whether the insurer may void the contract 1 Sales of Goods - Sales of Goods Act 1957 s 4(1),13,15,59 - Contracts Act s74 - conditions and warranties - breach of conditions - sale by description - purchaser specifically ordered a product which did not contain hazardous substance - purchaser paid the purchase price and accepted goods - purchaser did not inspect the product - whether purchaser waive its right when they accept and pay the goods - whether seller liable to pay damages that buyer had to pay third parties as a result of the defect in its goods caused by seller’s breach of the condition - whether purchaser is entitled to claim damages under s 59 of SOGA - damages - whether the loss is remote and indirect loss 1 Contract — Whether the contract and joint venture agreement between the parties exist — Whether there was any breach of the contract and joint venture agreement between parties — Damages — Whether aggrieved parties entitled to damages Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Defects in pleadings — Unpleaded claims — Whether defects in pleadings for the evidence adduced at trial could be overcome if the opposing party is not taken by surprise and not objected to the evidence 1 arbitration registration of arbitration award setting aside of arbitration award juridical seat of arbitration the court enjoying supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral award territorial jurisdiction international arbitration versus domestic arbitration standard PAM contract 2006 Clauses 34.5, 34.7 multiplicity of proceedings abuse of process section 23 of the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA) Arbitration Act sections 2,3,10,11,19J,22,33,37,38,41 Article 121 of the Federal Constitution 1 Bankruptcy - ss 6(3), 105(1) Bankruptcy Act 1967 - adjudication order and receiving order annulment of bankruptcy - the relevant date when the debtor is considered to be able to pay his debts - whether the solvency of a debtor under s 6(3) read with s 105(1) of BA 1967 must necessarily relate to his ability to pay his debts as they became due - whether Court of Appeal has erred in taking consideration of respondent’s ability to pay his debts based on subsequent change of circumstances 1 YAPSDZY 1 Administrative law — Order of certiorari — Dismissal from public service — Judicial review application by the Appellant to quash the decision of the Respondent — Whether the Appellant had constitutional right to appeal to Appeal Board against the decision of the Respondent under Article 144(5B)(ii) of the Federal Constitution — Whether Appellant ought not to be dismissed from public service without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in view of Article 132(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution — Whether “opportunity to be heard” connotes oral hearing — Whether Appellant ought to be given related documents and reports that formed subject matter of charges upon his request — Articles 132(1)(c) and 144(5B)(i) of the Federal Constitution — Regulations 4(2)(d), (g), (i), 37 and 38 of Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 — Regulations 5(1) and 14 of the Public Services and Disciplinary Board Regulation 1993 1 Civil Procedure — Striking out — Writ of summon and statement of claim — Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 19 — Whether the defendants had shown that the plaintiffs’ claims against them were obviously unsustainable — Whether there were plain and obvious case for the claims to be struck out 1 Partnership - Partnership Law - Winding up petition - Set aside winding up petition -Unregistered Company - Unregistered company - Whether winding up petition can be made by a partnership under Part X of the Companies Act 1965 by virtue of the definition of “unregistered company” under s 314(1) of the Companies Act 1965 - Whether winding up petition can be made if the partners was not comprised of more than five partners Partnership - Partnership Law - Company Law - Execution by a partner of an absolute assignment - s4 (3) of Civil Law Act 1956 - Power of attorney - Irrevocable power of attorney for valuable consideration pursuant to s6(1) of the Power Attorney Act 1949 - Partner assigned his right and his interest in partnership -Whether a partner who entered a partnership pursuant to assignment can be deemed a partner - s33 Partnership Act 1961 - ss314(2) Companies Act 1965 - Right of assignee - Could an assignee be deemed a partner for the purpose of ascertaining the number of partners - Whether an assignment conferred on the assignee legal status as a partner in a partnership - Consent of the other partner to admit the assignee as a partner - 1 Administrative Law — Judicial review proceedings — Review of process — Whether DC comply with the procedure set out in the Regulations set out in Part V of the 2nd Schedule to Act 605 — DC found the Appellant guilty and made the recommendation to the Minister to revoke the appointment of the Appellant as deputy CEO and to dismiss the Appellant — Whether Minister, when revoking the fixed term appointment made by him, can concurrently terminate the employment of the Appellant as an employee or officer of the 2nd Respondent — Was the Minister empowered to dismiss the Appellant from service in the 2nd Respondent, which the Minister purported to do by his letter dated 28.11.2012? — Minister had no actual or delegated power to dismiss the Appellant — Companies Commission of Malaysia Act 2001 (Act 614), section 11(4) ; Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 [Act 605], section 6; Disciplinary Rules 2000, Part II, Second Schedule, Regulations 32 to 39 Employment — Members of the public services and all employees of statutory bodies and local authorities — Appellant was charged for tarnishing the name and image of the 2nd respondent and/or irresponsible behavior — Whether decision was perverse, irrational and also contrary to law — Whether Minister, when revoking the fixed term appointment made by him, can concurrently terminate the employment of the Appellant as an employee or officer of the 2nd Respondent — Federal Constitution, Article 132; Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 [Act 605], section 6; Disciplinary Rules 2000, Part II, Second Schedule, Regulation 3(2)(d) or (g); Statutory and Local Authorities Pensions Act 1980; Whistle-blower Protection Act 2010, section 10(3) 1 ESTATE 1 Dismissal of application to nullify lien and grant of order for sale - Requirements for creation of lien - Whether lien holder caveat barred by section 10 of Malay Reservations Enactment - Whether section 17 only applies to lien and not lien holder caveat 1 Section 113(2) of the ITA 1967 1 Dismissal - Serious Breach Of Duty - Misconduct - Industrial Relations Act empowers the Industrial Court to Conduct Its Own Hearing - Industrial Court May Act In An inquisitorial Or Adversarial, Depending On The Circumstances - A Dishonest Act - Relied On The Notes Of Inquiry During The Domestic Inquiry 1 Prosedur Sivil — Semakan Kehakiman — Permohonan kebenaran — Permohonan semakan kehakiman oleh wakil dan pengundi berdaftar — Pemohon yang terkilan — Kajian semula penyempadanan Bahagian-Bahagian Pilihanraya bagi Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia — Sama ada “tindakan” yang boleh terjumlah kepada satu “tindakan” yang tertakluk kepada prosiding semakan Kehakiman 1 Pemohonan semakan kehakiman - Perintah Sekatan yang dikeluarkan oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri - Seksyen 6(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya [Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas] 1985 [Akta 316] - Alasan-Alasan dan Pengataan Fakta tidak dikemukakan bersama-sama Perintah Sekatan - Tiada elemen penglibatan Perayu terlibat dalam sekumpulan besar orang (substantial body of persons) bagi mengedar dadah berbahaya - Tiada ketidakpatuhan prosedur (procedural non-compliance) di bawah Seksyen 11C(1) Akta 316 - Proses representasi di hadapan Lembaga Penasihat di bawah Seksyen 9 Akta 316 1 Claim under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (“ESSA”) - meaning of “employment injury” under s.2(6) read with s. 24(1) ESSA - exception in s. 24(2) ESSA - whether interruption or deviation is for economic pursuit or necessary for work - employee injured in a commuting accident on a Sunday evening as he was returning to his rented house in Kulim to stay and rest for the night to be early and alert for work at factory in Kulim Hi-Tech Park the next day - whether “employment injury” proved nevertheless without reference to seeming provision in s.24(1) ESSA - social legislation - ambiguity in s. 24(1)(b) ESSA - purposive approach to interpretation. 1 s 69(3) and (4) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA)- rr 7(3), (3A) and (4) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA)-s 30(5) IRA 1 The IRA is a piece of beneficent social legislation with, among others, the objective of providing more effective remedies to employees [Social Objective (IRA)] 1 Applicant has a constitutional right to livelihood (Employee’s Constitutional Right to Livelihood) pursuant to Article 5(1) in Part II of the Federal Constitution (FC) 1 The IRA has provided for an employee’s security of tenure by conferring a limited proprietary right on an employee to be engaged in gainful employment which can only be terminated if there exists a just cause or excuse (Employee’s Limited Proprietary Right) 1 (1) if - (a) an employee (X) had been forced to sign a MSS contract with X’s employer (Y) under Y’s threat that - (i) X’s employment had become redundant; and (ii) Y would retrench X if X did not agree to the MSS contract; and (b) Y had not threatened to dismiss X from employment - whether the court can decide that X’s execution of the MSS contract constituted a dismissal of X by Y without just cause or excuse in the form of a “forced resignation”. This is a novel issue as we are unable to find any previous Malaysian case which has decided on this point; (2) in the factual circumstances as stated in the above sub-paragraph (1) - (a) whether Y bears the legal burden under s 101(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA) to prove on a balance of probabilities that X had signed the MSS contract voluntarily and consequently, X had not been unlawfully dismissed by Y by way of a forced resignation; or (b) does X have to discharge the legal burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that X had been “forced” to resign as Y’s employee by executing the MSS contract involuntarily and as such, X had been unlawfully dismissed by Y? The above issue also concerns a discussion of ss 91, 92 and proviso (a) to s 92 EA; (3) whether the IC and High Court had committed the following error(s) of law - (a) failure to take into account the following relevant facts - (i) negotiations between the Claimant and Respondent regarding the Draft (MSS Agreement) which led to the execution of the MSS Agreement [Negotiations (Draft MSS Agreement)]; (ii) the Claimant’s Request (Time to Consider MSS) which had been accepted by the Respondent; (iii) the Claimant’s Resignation Letter; (iv) the Claimant’s WhatsApp Message (15.1.2019) which amounted to an “admission” by the Claimant under ss 17(1), 18(1) and 21 EA that he had signed the MSS Agreement voluntarily; (v) the Claimant’s Early Release Request which led to the Bilateral Variation (MSS Agreement); and (vi) the Claimant’s conduct [relevant under s 8(2) EA] which did not send any demand, letter, email or WhatsApp message to the Respondent and/or COW1 regarding his forced resignation by way of the MSS Agreement; (b) consideration of irrelevant matters, namely - (i) there was an “offer” or promise by the Respondent to promote the Claimant; and (ii) Ms. Lim should have been called by the Respondent to testify at the IC Hearing regarding the contents of the Respondent’s Document (2 Tables); and (c) when the learned IC Chairman and Judicial Commissioner had decided that the Respondent’s Restructuring was not bona fide; (4) was the Award so irrational or unreasonable that no reasonable IC Chairperson would have made the Award?; and (5) whether the learned Judicial Commissioner had committed an error of law in applying the “plainly wrong” test (applicable in appeals against lower courts’ decisions after trial) in a Judicial Review application. 1 Mahkamah dengan sebulat suara memerintahkan bahawa: - Rayuan adalah ditolak; - Kos sebanyak RM10,000.00 dibayar kepada Responden tertakluk kepada bayaran Alokatur; dan - Perintah selanjutnya, pihak Perayu perlu membayar sebanyak RM144,200.00 kepada Responden melalui Solicitor dalam masa 1 bulan bermula tarikh hari ini, i.e. pada atau sebelum 5 Oktober 2022, 5 pm. 1 Two related appeals-whether the Minister has correctly exercised his discretion under subsection 20(3) of the IRA 1967 to refer the Claimant’s representation for adjudication in the Industrial Court-appealS allowed-learned Judicial Commissioner has made a finding that the Minister has erred in his finding that the Claimant is a workman, when the same should have been decided by the Industrial Court- the learned Judicial Commissioner seemed to have contradicted himself when he held that the Minister had decided that the Claimant is a workman, and yet at the same time said that the Minister ought to refer the matter to the Industrial Court for decision. 1 Permohonan Injuksi di bawah seksyen 50, 51, 52 dan 53 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 dan Aturan 29 Kaedah 1, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - tidak memfailkan permohonan seperti yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang - ganti rugi mencukupi. 1 Power of State authority when approving a proposed conversion of category of land use and sub-division of land and in the process of re-alienating the land-reduce its tenure from a term in perpetuity to a term of years not exceeding 99 years - from freehold to leasehold- duty as the purchasers to practice due diligence in conducting a search and inspection as to the nature, condition or defects of the land before they decided to purchase the lands-doctrine of estoppel had no place where the act is ultra vires- principle of Caveat Emptor or “let the buyer beware” being more suited to a case in contract and in private law, has no place in the matter of land law which is a matter of public law- Article 13 of the Federal Constitution- section 204E (3) NLC. 1 Facts - The deceased was detained for a total of 24 days before his demise and was never released from the time he was arrested on 13.02.2014 to the time of his death on 08.03.2014 while he was under the custody of the Defendants, their servants or agents. 1 False imprisonment - Legality of the detention of the Deceased – Held, the validity of remand proceedings could be challenged by way of criminal revision or appeal only – Held, the learned JC award RM100,000.00 is set aside. 1 Reliefs - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to special damages – Held, the sum of RM10,000.00 for special damages is reasonable. Reliefs – Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to bereavement – The learned JC had awarded RM2,000.00 for costs to the Plaintiff – Held, affirmed the award. Reliefs – Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages and aggravated damages – The learned JC disallowed both – Held, dismissed both. Costs for Appal No. 463 – The learned JC had awarded RM12,000.00 for costs to the Plaintiff - Held, a sum of RM30,000.00 is fair and reasonable. Conclusion - Appeal No. 463 is allowed partly with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff subject to allocator - Appeal No 71 is allowed partly with each party to bear their own costs. 1 Restitution- R1’s pleaded case that the Appellant was in Members’ Voluntary Liquidation (“MVL”) during the sale of the said Lands- MOT’s are void or insufficient instruments and the Respondent’s title to the 22 lots of land acquired through the same is voidable or defeasible pursuant to s 360(2)(1) and/or (b) of the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC”)- Appellant had again unreservedly made references to the Caveat Proceedings, Saman Pemula No:458 and the Consent Order, and by so doing had also expressly and/or impliedly confirmed the existence and validity of the SPA- judicial estoppel as well as equitable estoppel-Appellant had averred in the Counter Claim that the SPA was invalid because it was allegedly tainted by fraud as its directors had no authority to execute the same due to it being in liquidation, but adopted the contrary position that the SPA was valid in the earlier court proceedings- inequitable for the Appellant to now seek to invalidate the said Agreement after 46 years, having received the full purchase price 1 Facts - The deceased was detained for a total of 24 days before his demise and was never released from the time he was arrested on 13.02.2014 to the time of his death on 08.03.2014 while he was under the custody of the Defendants, their servants or agents. False imprisonment - Legality of the detention of the Deceased – Held, the validity of remand proceedings could be challenged by way of criminal revision or appeal only – Held, the learned JC award RM100,000.00 is set aside. 1 Reliefs - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to special damages – Held, the sum of RM10,000.00 for special damages is reasonable. 1 Reliefs – Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to bereavement – The learned JC had awarded RM2,000.00 for costs to the Plaintiff – Held, affirmed the award. 1 Reliefs – Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages and aggravated damages – The learned JC disallowed both – Held, dismissed both. 1 Costs for Appal No. 463 – The learned JC had awarded RM12,000.00 for costs to the Plaintiff - Held, a sum of RM30,000.00 is fair and reasonable. 1 Conclusion - Appeal No. 463 is allowed partly with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff subject to allocator - Appeal No 71 is allowed partly with each party to bear their own costs. 1 Civil appeal – Medical negligence – Liability was admitted and consent judgment was recorded between parties – Appeal against quantum of damages – General damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities to life – Appellant’s appeal is allowed in part and Respondent’s cross-appeal is dismissed 1 The Appellants claimed for compensation from the Advocates and Solicitors Compensation Fund (“Compensation Fund”) established under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”). The Respondent informed the Appellants that they were ineligible to make their claim, and thus refused to consider the Appellants’ application. The Appellants then appealed that decision to the High Court vide an Originating Summons. 1 Family Law — Distribution of assets — Business of medical practice — Matrimonial property—Maintenance — Proportion of entitlement — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 s 76 1 Application to stay the committal proceeding pending respondents’ application for review at the Federal Court - whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to grant an order for stay of the committal proceeding pending review pursuant to Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 - Sections 73 and 102 of the Court of Judicature Act - Rule 13 of the Rules of Court - Rule 52 of the Rules of Federal Court - Appeal dismissed 1 The court reviewed an application for the renewal of a writ, emphasizing that it generally does not interfere with trial court discretion in procedural matters. The case hinged on whether the plaintiff’s application to renew the writ, which expired due to irregular service, was timely. The “freezing-and-unfreezing” principle allowed the writ’s validity to resume after a judgment in default was set aside. The court found no error in the Judicial Commissioner's decision to grant the renewal, noting the defendant's arguments about limitation rights were procedural and irrelevant in this context. 1 Appeal - Interpretation of Order 27 Rule 3 Rules of Court 2012 - Whether an admission made by the appellant to a third party can secure a final judgment for plaintiff’s claim - Whether the application - Appeal allowed 1 TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD MY SEVEN VACATION SDN BHD SECRET GARDEN HOTEL CHEW THAI KAY KUAN KUANG GOLDSTRORAGE TRADING SDN BHD 1 Section 21(1)(f) of the former Companies Act 1965 1 Tan Cheong Hoor 1 Appeal by the defendant against the High Court's decision allowing the Originating Summons - The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether, vis-à-vis the Consent Order which was recorded between the Plaintiff and Defendant in Ipoh Sessions Court Application for Execution No. AA-56-WS-30-12/2015 on 6 February 2017 by which the Property was to be sold/transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, based on the purchase consideration of RM600,000.00, a term should be implied that the Property should be re-valued to reflect the current market value and that the Defendant is to pay the difference, in the event the valuation is higher than RM600,000.00. 1 Section 73 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Appeal not to operate as stay of execution - Section 44 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Incidental directions and interim orders - Rule 13 Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 - Stay of proceedings on appeal – Trite law of legal burden to show special circumstances to justify the grant of a stay of execution - Reasons must be deposed in the affidavit filed in support of the application - No special circumstance to justify an unconditional stay 1 Defamation in statement of defence - Whether defence of absolute privilege - Whether trial judge trial judge can restrict the defence by imposing requirement of relevancy and good faith 1 Trespass action - Constructive trust over temple land - Whether intention relevant essential? - Whether evidence supports constructive trust over wider area? - Whether action barred by limitation. 1 Construction of contracts; the application principles to be applied where there exists ambiguity or contradiction in the terms of a contract; evidence of surrounding circumstances before the contract is signed may be used for the purposes of construction; however, evidence after the signing cannot be used to construe terms of the contract. 1 Land matter - Sale and Purchase Agreement - Specific Performance - Fraud and Conspiracy - Bona Fide Purchaser For Valuable Consideration - Void or Insufficient Instrument - section 340 of National Land Code - Functus officio 1 Contract — Loan Agreement and Personal Guarantee by Directors — friendly loan — Agreed Profit — excessive rate of interest — Defendants defaulted repayment of the loan — Whether contract is a ‘friendly loan’ or in reality an illegal moneylending transaction in contravention of the Moneylenders Act 1951 — whether the plaintiff had carried out the business of moneylending — Whether transaction fell within s 10OA of Moneylenders Act 1951 (‘MA’) to raise presumption that plaintiff was moneylender — Whether the presumption of carrying on the business of moneylending had been rebutted by the plaintiff. 1 Section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Distribution of matrimonial property – Division of the matrimonial house – the division is not an exercise of strict financial accounting but a fair and equitable distribution of the matrimonial property and assets - proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial house be distributed on 50%-50% basis - Section 92, 93 and 95 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Maintenance and tertiary education expenses of the Children. 1 Bankruptcy — Bankruptcy notice — Appeal — Civil procedure — Setting aside — Whether judgment dated 19.9.2011 was not a final order as the profits and the interest had not been quantified — Appellant commenced bankruptcy proceedings against respondents to enforce judgment— Whether amount demanded from the judgment debtors not quantified, not capable of execution and not in accordance with the judgment — Respondents sought to set aside bankruptcy notice — Whether application to set aside bankruptcy notice not in compliance with the existing law and the Rules — Bankruptcy Act 1967 [Act 360 – known as Insolvency Act 1967], ss 3(1)(i) & 5(1); Bankruptcy Rules 1969 [P.U. (A) 199/1969 as amended by P.U. (A) 83/1978, 59/1979, 32/1989, 60/1993, 235/1999 and 225/2005), rule 18, rule 95; Rules of Court 2012, 018 r19, O46 r 2(1)(a) 1 The primary focus of this appeal is on the question whether contributory negligence or additional liability ought to fasten on a motorist who suffers injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of another, and whether the former ought not to be entitled to relief, in whole or in part, if at the time of the accident, he did not hold a valid licence to ride a motorcycle which also had no road tax and no policy of insurance against third party risks. 1 Mahkamah Koroner - keputusan terbuka “open verdict” - bertanggungjawab secara jenayah "who is criminally concerned" - Seksyen 328 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – “opinion” - “cause of death” - Seksyen 337 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – “Coroner to inquire whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of such death” – Seksyen 335 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – “power to the Coroner holding an inquiry under Chapter XXXII of the CPC” - Perkara 145(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Arahan Amalan Ketua Hakim Negara Bilangan 2 Tahun 2019 1 Notice of preliminary objection on two grounds - The appeal is incompetent - The appeal has been rendered academic - Section 50 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal appeals - Section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 – Deifinition of the word "decision" - The right of appeal against any decision of the court in respect of criminal matter does not include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties - The order of the High Court to allow the prosecution's application for review and further order to set aside the Sessions Court’s ruling that the appellant's passport be temporary released, does not amount to disposal of rights of the parties - The orders of the High Court are not “decision" that has the effect of finally determining the rights of the appellant within the definition under section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and therefore is not appealable - There are compelling justification for this Honourable Court to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits - The preliminary objection raised by respondent is without merits and accordingly, the Court dismiss the respondent’s objection - The learned judge had failed to sufficiently consider the significance concept of the appellant business in feng shui - The appellant has never failed to appear in court for his ongoing criminal trial - The Court also recognised that the order sought by the appellant has gone stale - To strike a balance between the risk of the appellant fleeing and fundamental right under the Federal Constitution to the freedom of movement, liberty and presumption of innocence - Supporting documents such as flight itinerary or accommodation particulars must be submitted to the Sessions Court and failure to furnish the required documents will result in refusal to regain temporary release of his passport - Upon compliance, the applicant international passport will then be released to the appellant and the passport will need to returned to the Sessions Court. 1 Criminal Procedure - Criminal Procedure Code, s417 - Transfer of case to High Court - appellant is a member of Perak’s State Exco - appellant was charged with rape - appellant applied to transfer his case to High Court for trial - application was rejected by Judicial Commissioner - whether the transfer if allowed would prejudice the respondent - whether the case should be transferred for the interest of justice - absence of precedent to allow application upon such concession - power of Public Prosecutor to effect such transfer - whether Court should allow application by Public Prosecutor 1 This appeal concerns the discretionary power of the High Court to transfer a criminal trial in the Sessions Court to the High Court pursuant to s 417(1)(a), (b) and (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). This judgment discusses, among others, the following issues: 1 (1) whether subordinate courts have the “jurisdiction” and the “power” to decide constitutional law issues; 1 (2) should the High Court have exercised its discretion to transfer this case in the Sessions Court to the High Court under s 417(1)(a), (b) and (e) CPC? In this regard - 1 (a) can the High Court transfer a case in the subordinate court to the High Court pursuant to - 1 (i) s 4 CPC; or 1 (ii) the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or power?; and 1 (b) whether the High Court can take into account the following considerations - 1 (i) the alleged breaches of the appellant’s rights under the Federal Constitution; 1 (ii) the alleged bad faith of the Public Prosecutor (PP) in this case; 1 (iii) the Sessions Court’s decision that the Sessions Court should not decide on constitutional law issues; 1 (iv) the concession of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor that this case should be transferred from the Sessions Court to the High Court; 1 (v) the personal exercise of the PP’s discretion under s 418A(1) CPC to transfer other cases in the subordinate courts to the High Court; 1 (vi) a decision of the High Court in a civil suit filed by the appellant’s son against the police, DPP and Government of Malaysia (Civil Suit); and 1 (viii) the evidence of the complainant and two investigating officers in the Civil Suit; and 1 (3) is there any reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene in this appeal in respect of the exercise of the learned High Court Judge’s discretion to dismiss the appellant’s application to transfer this case from the Sessions Court to the High Court? 1 Seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Isu sama ada hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh 15 tahun yang dijatuhkan oleh Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana ini adalah berlandaskan kepada undang-undang ataupun sebaliknya - Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 (Akta 846) - Seksyen 3 Akta Keadilan Jenayah 1953 (Disemak 1988) (Akta 345) - Hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman tidak berlandaskan kepada undang-undang yang termaktub - Pertuduhan pindaan terhadap Responden dikemukakan dibawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A (2) Akta yang sama - Hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh 15 tahun dari tarikh tangkap (2 Disember 2020) dibawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 diketepikan dan digantikan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh sepuluh (10) tahun dari tarikh beliau ditangkap - Hukuman sebatan terhadap Responden dikecualikan. 1 kesalahan membunuh seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan prima facie dibuktikan membela diri bersalah disabitkan sabitan gantung sampai mati sebulat suara bermerit diketepikan digantikan perintah/hukuman penjara tempoh 30 tahun berkuatkuasa tarikh tangkapan disebat rotan sejumlah 12 kali saksi mata disyaki dipukul sebatang kayu rampasan punca kejadian masalah hutang pertuduhan penemuan mayat kepala trauma objek tumpul keterangan langsung ikut keadaan niat melampaui keraguan munasabah fakta material barang ujian pengesanan perbandingan DNA hasil analisa Bedah Siasat mayat Simati tengkorak patah terbenam dasar otak pendarahan subaraknoid dapatan fakta boleh dipercayai (credible) konsisten kredibilti viva voce ketidakadilan fatal bertentangan teras/ substantive material Kenyataan Bertulis corak kedudukan pattern distribution kecederaan 1 Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking in — Possession of — Appeal against convictions and sentences — Whether trial judge erred in findings that prosecution had proven a prima facie case that the appellant had the sole custody and control of the drugs — Whether trial judge erred in finding of actual or mens rea possession against the appellant — Whether trial judge had failed to carry out a fair and just assessment of the defence case — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234], s 37(da), s 39B(1)(a) 1 Criminal Appeal – Section 302 of the Penal Code – The defence of insanity – Overall circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution points to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused had committed the offence and the defence of insanity raised was failed – The accused capable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law – Appeal is dismissed. 1 Murder- Appellant had consumed any drugs prior to the incident- amount of this active ingredient however was so small that it would not have any effect to the behavior of a person.- although SP17 did not see the Appellant cause the injuries to the second and third deceased, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly indicated that it was the Appellant who inflicted the fatal injuries on them-parang and the hands of the Appellant had blood on them- unchallenged evidence that the Appellant was in physical possession of the parang throughout right up to his arrest and the conduct of the Appellant before he entered the house such as breaking the front door with the parang as being relevant of the fact that it was the Appellant and no one else who had inflicted the injuries- forensic evidence also pointed to the presence of SP17's DNA on the parang (P93B) and the sheath (P94A).The DNA of the first deceased was found on the shirt (P95A) worn by the Appellant. The DNA of SP17 and the first deceased were also found on a part of the Appellant’s jeans (P96A)- injuries on all the three deceased were at the vital parts of the body- words used by the Appellant- HCJ stated that he could not find any evidence at the end of the prosecution case to indicate that the Appellant was insane due to intoxication at the time of the offence - Appellant was fit to plead and that the accused was sane at the time of the commission of the offences and that he knew the consequences of his actions and could know what he was doing was wrong and against the law- Appellant never experienced any psychotic phenomena- even if these drugs were detected in the blood of the Appellant, which in this case none were, that would not be a determinant factor that he was in a state of intoxication- cumulative effect of the Appellant’s conduct prior to, during and after the incidents points to him knowing the nature of his actions and that it was wrong- Appellant did not experience any substance induced disorder and did not experience hallucinations or delusions in relation to substance abuse- defence of grave and sudden provocation is not available to the Appellant in the circumstances of this case as there was no evidence that the provocation was "grave and sudden"- death penalty should be set aside and replaced with a term of imprisonment of 30 to 40 years following the amendment pursuant to the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 202-declined to exercise our discretion in light of the fact that the lives of 3 young children have been cruelly cut short by the viscous and savage act of the Appellant- the lives of 3 innocent children were extinguished in such a cruel fashion. 1 Pengenalan - Damodran Premkumar a/l Vigia Kumaran (Perayu) telah dipertuduhkan dengan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (“ADB 1952”) – Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh di atas penilaian maksima mendapati di akhir kes pendakwaan, pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap Perayu di atas pertuduhan yang dihadapinya. Oleh yang demikian, Perayu dipanggil membela diri. 1 Di akhir kes Pembelaan, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan Perayu telah gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah. Oleh itu, pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kesnya melampaui suatu kerugian yang munasabah. Perayu telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di atas pertuduhan yang dihadapinya. Perayu dijatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati. 1 Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut, Perayu telah merayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman yang diputuskan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dengan membangkitkan isu-isu berikut: 1 Isu 1 – Identiti Barang Kes – SP2 menyatakan ada dua paket plastik yang dibawa oleh pegawai penyiasat ke Unit Forensik untuk pengesanan cap jari – ini telah menimbulkan keraguan tentang identiti ekshibit dadah tersebut – setelah menyemak keterangan SP2, Mahkamah rayuan berpendapat SP2 telah mengaku membuat kesilapan dalam pernyataan saksinya apabila menyatakan bahawa pegawai penyiasat telah membawa 2 paket ke Unit Forensik untuk pengesanan cap jari – SP2 telah memberi penjelasan di atas kesilapan tersebut dan dibenarkan membuat pindaan kepada pernyataan saksinya – Oleh itu, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan isu ini tidak bermerit dan wajar ditolak. 1 Isu 2 – Percanggahan dalam Keterangan SP4 Dan SP5 tentang lokasi penemuan barang kes – Mahkamah Rayuan mendapati kedua-dua SP4 dan SP5 menyatakan bahawa beg pinggang yang dipegang oleh Perayu dicampak di kawasan semak di hadapan rumah yang ditandakan “X” di gambar E (Ekshibit P8(E)) (rujuk keterangan SP4 di muka surat 43 dan 44, keterangan SP5 di muka surat 73 dan 74 RR Jilid 2) – Mahkamah Rayuan bersetuju dengan dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa keterangan SP4 dan SP5 yang mengaitkan Perayu dengan barang kes P15 berserta kandungan adalah mantap dan kredibel – keterangan SP4 dan SP5 jelas menunjukkan bahawa barang kes tersebut adalah dalam milikan dan kawalan Perayu – perbuatan Perayu mencampakkan beg pinggangnya P15 yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya tersebut dan cuba melarikan diri dan bergelut sebelum berjaya ditangkap oleh polis jelas menunjukkan Perayu mempunyai pengetahuan tentang kandungan beg pinggang P15 tersebut. 1 Isu 3, 4 dan 5 – Integriti serta rantaian keterangan borang kes – (i) borang geledah tidak dibuat di tempat kejadian – (ii) senarai geledah tidak menyatakan di mana beg pinggang berwarna hijau (P15) dijumpai – (iii) ketuanpunyaan kad Touch n Go tidak disiasat – Mahkamah Rayuan mendapati SP4 telah menjelaskan bahawa borang geledah tidak sesuai dibuat di tempat kejadian – SP4 telah menyatakan secara terperinci apa barang kes yang dirampas daripada Perayu dan di mana dirampas (rujuk Borang Senarai Geledah ekshibit P23) – Mahkamah Rayuan bersetuju bahawa kegagalan pegawai penyiasat untuk menyiasat siapa pemilik kad “Touch n Go” tidak menjejaskan kes pendakwaan – sekalipun kad “Touch n Go” itu milik orang lain, isu kawalan dan jagaan ke atas beg pinggang P15 daripada keterangan SP4 dan SP5 telah jelas menunjukkan ianya adalah milik Perayu – Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah membuat dapatan fakta yang betul berdasarkan keterangan yang ada – Mahkamah Rayuan tidak ada sebab untuk mengganggu dapatan fakta tersebut. 1 Isu 6 – Kegagalan pegawai penyiasat menyiasat siapa penghuni atau pemilik rumah – berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi, barang kes telah dicampak oleh Perayu di tepi rumah di tempat kejadian – Mahkamah Rayuan berpendapat bahawa kegagalan pegawai penyiasat untuk menyiasat siapa penghuni atau pemilik rumah tidak menjejaskan kes pendakwaan – tiada apa-apa keperluan untuk 1 Undang-undang jenayah - rompakan bersenjata - menyebabkan kematian menggunakan senjatapi - kedua-dua perayu dihukum mati - sama ada kes pendakwaan yang bergantung kepada keterangan mengikut keadaan berjaya dibuktikan - sama ada hakim bicara khilaf dalam memutuskan bahawa berlakunya rompakan wang walaupun tiada keterangan mengenai jumlah wang yang dibawa dan dirompak - sama ada hakim bicara khilaf mensabitkan perayu kedua sedangkan tiada keterangan - sama ada sabitan berdasarkan keterangan “bad character” adalah betul - sama ada hakim bicara telah menimbangkan pembelaan perayu mengikut perspektif yang betul 1 Murder- deceased had been positively identified by SP5 and SP6- act of the Appellant as testified to by SP5, SP6 and the expert evidence of SP7 that caused the death of the deceased- direct evidence-credibility of SP5 and SP6 were suspect because they had failed to lodge a police report about the incident- time frame between the date of the incident on 15.1.2018 until the trial had raised the possibility of an afterthought on the part of SP5 and SP6- SP5 and SP6 had acted in such a manner that they had wanted to prevent the death of the deceased by searching for him after he had fled from the pursuit of the Appellant and thereafter securing transport in order to bring the deceased to a clinic- allegations against SP5 and SP6 were thus unfounded just because they had omitted to lodge a police report- discovery of the knife (P23) as a result of the information supplied by the Appellant while in custody which in turn indicated the Appellant’s knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of the said knife- The act of the Appellant in showing the police where the knife was also admissible under section 8(2) EA and also section 60(3) EA- motive for wanting to inflict such injuries upon the deceased over the latter’s accusation against him for the theft of the power bank- Appellant had remained in hiding in the jungle for a period of about 10 days before he was arrested on 27.1.2018 which he said was a fact that was relevant and material in proving that the Appellant hid himself for fear of detection and apprehension by the authorities-conduct- section 8(2) EA- grave and sudden provocation- interval of time between the acts of the alleged provocation at the house of the Appellant and the time when the Appellant went to the house of Mat Pen to inflict the fatal injuries on the deceased- Appellant went over to Mat Pens house armed with a knife showed active premeditation on the part of the Appellant in searching out the deceased while armed with a knife- no grave and sudden provocation-the Appellant hid the knife behind his back when approaching the deceased-indicating his clear intention to catch the deceased off-guard- psychiatric report stated that the Appellant was in a stable mental condition and was aware at the time of the incident of his actions and that he knew that his actions was wrong in law. 1 Undang-Undang Jenayah — Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman —Kesalahan membunuh — Homisid salah — Menyebabkan kematian dengan memandu secara melulu dalam cubaan Perayu untuk melarikan diri —Kereta perayu yang dipandu dengan laju merempuh semua mangsa lalu menyebabkan bencana tubuh kepada dua orang mangsa yang cedera dan kematian seorang mangsa — Sama ada 'mens rea' atau pengetahuan dibuktikan dalam tindakan memandu secara melulu — Sandaran inferens pengetahuan Perayu bahawa tindakannya mesti dalam semua kemungkinan menyebabkan kematian atau kecederaan badan yang bermungkinan menyebabkan kematian — Menyebabkan kematian dengan memandu secara berbahaya — Sama ada menimbulkan risiko kecederaan yang tinggi — Sama ada tidak memperdulikan kemungkinan risiko tersebut — Sama ada Hakim bicara telah terkhilaf apabila memutuskan bahawa ketiga-tiga pertuduhan telah berjaya dibuktikan setelah mendengar keterangan kesemua saksi — Sama ada keterangan SP5, SP6, dan SP7 menunjukkan perayu mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa perbuatannya itu adalah sebegitu berbahaya sehingga berkemungkinan menyebabkan kematian, atau sesuatu bencana tubuh yang boleh menyebabkan kematian — Sama ada daripada keterangan yang sedia ada, pertuduhan terhadap Perayu seharusnya dipinda kepada peruntukan dalam undang-undang sedia ada mengenai perbuatan homisid salah atau kesalahan memandu secara melulu — Sama ada kegagalan menjalankan siasatan yang rapi dan tepat di bawah Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 membangkitkan mudarat kepada perayu yang dipertuduhkan di bawah Kanun Keseksaan — Sama perayu berjaya mengemukakan ‘alasan’ (excuse) di akhir kes pembelaan dan pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan tanpa keraguan yang munasabah tiadanya ‘alasan’ wajar — Sama ada sabitan terhadap perayu adalah selamat — Kanun Keseksaan [Akta 574], seksyen 300 (d), seksyen 302, seksyen 304A, seksyen 307, seksyen 336 atau 338; Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 [Akta 333], seksyen 41(1) atau 43 1 SEKSYEN 39B AKTA DADAH BERBAHAYA, PEMILIKAN BERSAMA, ANGGAPAN PEMILIKAN DAN PENGETAHUAN 1 rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - seksyen 376 kanun keseksaan dan seksyen 395 & 397 kanun keseksaan - pengakuan bersyarat - tidak diwakili peguam - pengakuan bersalah - seksyen 305 kanun keseksaan - tiada tawaran pengakuan - seksyen 172C kanun tatacara jenayah - seksyen 173 kanun tatacara jenayah - sama ada hukuman berjalan serentak atau berasingan - kesalahan bukan jenis dan kategori yang sama - kekerasan jenayah melibatkan pesalah muda - laporan sosial - kepentingan awam 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Striking out - Whether claim barred by limitation - Whether the cause of action accrued upon issuance of letter of demand - Whether action plain and obviously unsustainable - Rules of Court 2012, o. 18 r. 19(1) 1 Tort-a proceedings against government-breach of statutory duty to maintain public roads in good repair and condition-whether the duty can be delegated to third party 1 Defamation suit-striking out-pleadings in defamation cases not complied with-specific words alleged to be defamatory must be set out in order for defence to know defences that can be relied on-pleadings must disclose a cause of action in defamation-defamatory meanings imputed by impugned words must be pleaded 1 Civil procedure - execution - leave to issue execution more than six years after judgement - Application made before the expiry of 12 year limitation period prescribed by Limitation Act 1953 - whether sufficient reasons shown for Court to exercise discretion in favour of applicant. 1 Striking out application - whether the 1st Plaintiff has no authority to bring this action on its own behalf or on behalf of and in the name of the 2nd Plaintiff as this issue has been decided by two previous High Court cases and that res jusdicata applies - whether the solicitors Messrs Rathi MG Associates have no authority to act for the 2nd Plaintiff - Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 rule 19 (1); Order 14 rule 7(4); Contracts Act [Act 136], section 24. 1 12ANCC-120-12/2018 1 Public utilities - electricity - meter tampering or interference - claim for loss or revenue because of tampering - whether evidence in rebuttal created doubt of plaintiff's method of calculation. 1 Civil proceddure - appeal - record of appeal - Rules of High Court 2012 - non compliance with Ord 55 Rule (4) - whether non compliance fatal - whether there is onus on appellant to offer rasonable explanation for non compliance. 1 Tort - Assault - Assesment of danger - what aggravated and exemplary damages may be awarded in tort 1 Tort-Negligence-Road Accident-Vehicles travelling in opposite direction-whether plaintiff established her case 1 Practice and procedure-apply for extension of time to serve notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time-reasons for application inadequate-nothing said about merits of appeal 1 Civil appeal - failure to serve Draft Index of Documents - whether appellant's record of appeal and appeal ought to be dismissed for this reason. 1 Kontrak - Perkongsian syer perniagaan - kemungkiran perjanjian - hak sebagai pekongsi dan pengeluar modal - sama ada Plaintif telah memenuhi kehendak perjanjian untuk berhak ke atas perintah perlaksanaan spesifik - sama ada dapatan hakim bicara adalah betul - sama ada tuntutan balas Defendan-Defendan berjaya dibuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua melanggari Perjanjian - Akta Keterangan 1950 [Akta 56], seksyen 101(1); Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 [Akta 137], seksyen 4 dan 11 1 Contract - bank guarantee given by developer to landowner - whether call made on bank guarantee without basis and unconscionable 1 Civil Procedure: Guarantee - Construction - Guarantor's liability - Grant of judgement in default against principal debtor - Whether guarantor can be held liable 1 12BNCC-38-10/2018 1 Evidence - failure of plaintiff to give evidence - whether failure calls for invocation of S. 114 (g) Evidence Act 1950 - Conract - whether agreement with the beneficial owner of shares can be enforced. 1 privity of contract 1 1 The pertinent facts span the period of 20 years. USM sued two of their students who were granted Fellowship scholarships. The students breached their respective Fellowship Agreements. 1 2 USM obtained default Judgments against the students. When USM executed the Judgments, the students negotiated to settled the debts due. As a result, the execution proceedings were called off. But a few years later, the students fell into default of the settlement arrangement. USM again executed the Judgments. This time, the students applied to set aside the default Judgments. 1 3 There is a review of the law relating to the setting aside of default Judgments. And there is an analysis of how the issue of delay bears upon the Court's decision whether to, or not to, set aside a default Judgment. 1 4 Here, the students (the Defendants) were less than forthright. An analysis of their averments against the evidence contained in the documentary evidence, discloses that the students' averments were not only incredible, but false. 1 5 Accordingly, the respective Applications to set aside the default Judgments were dismissed with costs. 1 In a summary of the reasons, it can be concluded that: (i) It is time-barred under Section 6 (3) of the Limitation Act 1963 (ii) An Application for an extension of time cannot be granted after the 12-year period has expired. (iii) The Second Order, which is a subset extension of the First Order, is also null and void; and (iv) Section 33 of the Limitatation Act 1963 does not apply in this case. 1 In a summary of the reasons, it can be concluded that: 1 (i) It is time-barred under Section 6 (3) of the Limitation Act 1963 (ii) An Application for an extension of time cannot be granted after the 12-year period has expired. (iii) The Second Order, which is a subset extension of the First Order, is also null and void; and (iv) Section 33 of the Limitatation Act 1963 does not apply in this case. 1 -Trial of issue remitted by Federal Court. -The 1st Plaintiff’s Claim (Dependent Claims 14, 15 and 20) is allowed. -The Counterclaim (Dependent Claims 14, 15 and 20) is dismissed. 1 With reference to legal cost, despite the Plaintiffs failing to prove the amount of damages claimed, this Court in exercise of its discretionary powers is incline to award cost in the Plaintiffs’ favour. I do so take into account the long-protracted proceedings that the Plaintiffs had to go through before the present case concluded by way of the assessment exercise before me. Compared to the 4th Defendant which is a money-making corporation, almost all of the Plaintiffs are self-employed. I take the view that they should not be penalize for their failure to prove damages due to their failure to produce income tax documents and bank documents in support of their claim. Under these circumstances, I take the view that a sum of RM10,000-00 to the Plaintiffs (subject to allocator) is reasonable towards costs of proceedings and order so accordingly. 1 TUNTUTAN SIVIL: Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan atas dakwaan tahanan tidak sah kerana Pihak Defendan telah gagal mendapatkan perintah waran menahan lanjutan - menahan tanpa sebarang perintah waran menahan yang sah - memindahkan Plaintif ke Penjara Tapah tanpa waran menahan - cuai, sengaja dan/atau berniat mala fide telah menahan Plaintif di penjara - gagal memastikan prosedur-prosedur penahanan dilakukan dengan betul - gagal untuk memastikan penjagaan Plaintif dengan betul semasa dalam tahanan - melanjutkan penahanan Plaintif selepas penahanan tidak sah selama 5 bulan 13 hari lagi melalui proses dan/atau prosedur yang tidak betul - secara alternatif, Pihak Defendan telah dengan cuai dan/atau melanggar kewajipan statutori terhadap Plaintif di bawah Seksyen 3(3) dan Seksyen 20, Akta Polis 1967 - Isu-isu yang timbul sama ada waran menahan Plaintif luput pada 29.5.2012 - sama ada terdapat suatu waran menahan yang sah semasa Plaintif dibawa ke Penjara Tapah pada 14.6.2012 - sama ada penahanan Plaintif selanjutnya selama 5 bulan 13 hari itu sah - sama ada Plaintif berhak kepada gantirugi yang dipohon - saya membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Pihak Defendan dan memberikan deklarasi bahawa Pihak Defendan telah bertindak ultra vires Akta Polis 1967, Kaedah-Kaedah Lokap 1953, Seksyen 259 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan apabila Plaintif ditahan tanpa sebarang waran menahan yang sah (i.e. Prayer 31(v) pernyataan tuntutan Plaintif dibenarkan). 1 Administrative law - judicial review - mode of commencement - whether by writ or originating summons - circumstances when procedure under Order 53 of Rules of Court 2012 mandatory - whether action liable to be struck out if wrong mode and procedure is used. 1 Claim by Plaintiffs for damages as a result of Defendant’s negligence in removing of caveat entered-caveat was removed on the basis of a Court order given in another case where the Plaintiff was not a party-whether terms of the Court order encompasses the Plaintiffs’ caveat-whether the State Government and Director of Land and Mines was unnecessarily cited as Defendants in proceedings against the Registrar of Titles in relation to his functions under the National Land Code-even if the removal was wrongful, whether damages should be granted-absence of evidence on the loss claimed being the result of the wrongful removal of the caveat 1 Tort - misfeance in public office - whether tort of misfeance involves both public and private law elements. 1 Contact - misrepresentation - claim based on Innocent misrepresentation - elements of innocent 1 Having heard brief submission from counsel on the issue of costs, considering the length of the trial, the complexity of issues and the getting up done towards the submissions both written and oral, I find a sum of RM50,000-00 (subject to allocator) is reasonable towards the cost of the trial. I order so accordingly. 1 This is an assessment of damages against the 1st and 2nd defendants arising out the decision of the High Court in allowing the plaintiffs’ claim and as varied by the Court of Appeal. 1 Whether the appeal filed by the appellant pursuant to s.418 of the NLC was filed with the statutory time period of 3 months from the date the decision was communicated to him. If it was filed beyond the 3 months period from the date when the 2nd respondent’s approvals were communicated to the appellant, the appeal would be rendered incompetent thus affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the matter. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating summons - Interpretation and determination - Vested rights of registered and professionally trained medical practitioners to dispense medicine under Poisons Act 1952 read together with Poison Regulations 1952 - the legal tenability of the nature of the declarations sought in this case and whether they can therefore be granted in light of the doctrine of separation of powers - whether the declarations, if granted, would tantamount to judicial interference with the executive and legislative policy by effectively accepting Ivermectin as a suitable treatment option or preventive measure for Covid-19 1 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Legislation - Acts of Parliament - Sections 18 , 19 and 21 of Poisons Act 1952 – Sale of Drugs Act 1952 - Poisons Regulations 1952 – Control of Drugs and Comestics Regulation 1984 - Whether specifically enacted to vest autonomous right to medical practitioners to dispense and administer drug based on their professional judgment - Whether permissible to construe subsidiary legislation under Sale of Drugs Act 1952 in manner that takes away right vested under Poisons Act 1952 1 Shares - Insider trading - Whether intent to use the alleged inside information which forms the mens rea or mental element is required to ground liability pursuant to Section 89E of the SIA, or whether it is a matter of strict liability that requires proof of mere possession of inside information, or whether proof only that the Defendant knew that the information was not generally available information, suffices (Breach Issue) - Whether the relevant time to assess the materiality of the alleged inside information is at the time the impugned acquisition occurs, or whether a Court may consider the facts and circumstances occurring after the time of the impugned acquisition (Materiality Issue) - Whether the power given solely to the Attorney General (AG) to institute “any proceedings for an offence” under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution (FC) extends to a civil action brought under Section 90 and Section 90A(5) of the SIA (Constitutional Issue). 1 Whether retired Members of Parliament are entitled to a revision of their pensions when there is a revision of the salary of serving Members of Parliament 1 strict construction of tax exemption - interpretation of Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) Order 2018 - Item 57 Schedule A and Item 53 Schedule A - distinction between Traders and Manufacturers - judicial revies in tax matters - internal custom policies - legitimate Expectation Doctrine - procedural requirements in tax exemptions claims - impact of value-added processes on Tax Treatment - burden of proof and clarity in tax claims - implications for tax payers and custom Administration 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Challenging validity of fatwa - Whether the Fatwa on a whole is valid having regard to the fact that it purports to suggest that certain federal authorities take specific action against the first appellant (specifically) and other persons (including the second appellant) generally - Whether the fatwa could legally apply to SIS Forum (Malaysia) (a company limited by guarantee, i.e., an artificial legal person) and non-Muslim individuals - Whether the fatwa could - Direct federal agencies to block social media content - Mandate confiscation of publications (a power reserved under federal laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984) - Whether a gazetted fatwa (under Section 49, ARIE 2003) qualifies as subsidiary legislation and is thus reviewable for Constitutionality – Reasonableness. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Jurisdiction - Civil and Syariah courts - Challenging validity of fatwa - Conflict between Article 121(1) (vesting judicial power in civil courts) and Article 121(1A) (excluding civil courts from Syariah matters) - Whether civil courts can review a fatwa’s legality (not religious substance) - Whether the Selangor Fatwa Committee overstepped state powers under - Item 1, State List - Federal List -Whether the fatwa violated freedom of speech (Article 10) and freedom of religion (Article 11) - Whether a gazetted fatwa (state law) can override the Federal Constitution - Can a corporation (SIS Forum) be considered a "person professing Islam" under Item 1, State List. 1 - strict and narrow interpretation of Tax Exemption - registered manufacturer - single-stage Tax Principle - distinction between Statutory Orders and ministerial letters - judicial precedent on tax exemption - non-retroactivity of legislative amendments -practical implications for manufacturers and Tax Practitioners 1 The application of the proviso of section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. 1 What amounts to a question of law? 1 Whether there was a valid surrender of the impugned land by Orchard Circle to the State Authority? 1 The conditions and requirements for a valid surrender of land. 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA 1 (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) 1 RAYUAN SIVIL NO. 01(f)-4-02/2024(W) 1 ANTARA 1 SRI SANJEEVAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN [No. KP: 841009-05-5689] ... PERAYU 1 1. ASP POONNAM E. KELING 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ... RESPONDEN 1 The Appellant had commenced an action for false imprisonment against the Respondents - Where an order issuing the writ of Habeas Corpus is made in relation to the remand of a person, is it a necessary implication of such order that the detention was not effected in accordance with law under Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution and was thus unlawful for contravening Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution and amounting to false imprisonment - the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. 1 Majority Whether the trial judge was bound by the unless order pronounced by the Interlocutory Proceeding Judge when the unless order has the similar effect as though a Summary Judgment or Judgment in Default was entered against the Appellants wherein it fails to comply with the provision of Order 73 of the Rules of Courts 2012 and Section 42 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 1 Dissenting Effect of not complying with a court order. The need to comply with court directions. Judgment should be entered in the event there is such non-compliance. 1 HAVI LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD ... PERAYU 1 PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM ... RESPONDEN 1 Leave to appeal - Whether the Asset Purchase Agreement was a conveyance on sale within the meaning of section 21(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 which is dutiable under Item 32(a) of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949? Whether the deeming provision in clause 2.3(c)(i) of the Asset Purchase Agreement makes the said agreement an instrument (i.e. conveyance on sale) which falls under section 21(1) of the Stamp Act 1949? Whether the Asset Purchase Agreement falls under the exception under section 21(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 and if the answer is in affirmative, was the Court of Appeal correct to subject the said Agreement to ad valorem duty under Item 32(a) of First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949? Whether the Collector of Stamp Duties may raise a stamp duty assessment without specifying which sub-limb of Item 32 of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949 that the Collector has invoked? Applicable principles - Under the Act, stamp duty is imposed on an instrument and not on a transaction. Hence, if the transaction can be effected orally or by conduct, it would not attract stamp duty. Thus, one must look at the instrument in determining the applicable stamp duty. 1 Anti Dumping - Export Price - Constructed Export Price - Related Party Transactions - Fair Comparison - Normal Value - Duty Drawback - WTO Anti Dumping Agreement - GATT Article VI - Section 17 and 18, Countervailing and Anti Dumping Duties Act 1993 - Countervailing and Anti Dumping Duties Regulations 1994 - Statutory Interpretation - Harmonious Construction - Burden of Proof - Domestic Implementation of Treaties - Inward Processing Regime (IPR) - Dumping Margin - Trade Remedie3s - Judicial Review - Administrative Law 1 Judicial Review - Leave stage - Attorney General's role under o.53 r 3(3) ROC 2012 - Whether duty to confirm or disclose documents - Burden of proof for disputed evidence - Distinction between procedural and respondent roles. Fresh Evidence - Application at appellate stage - Rule 7 (3A) RCA 1994 - Whether codifies or displaces Ladd v Marshall - Threshold of "determining influence" vs "important influence". Constitutional Law - Royal pardon - Judicial review of Pardons Board decision - Whether justiciable - Whether fresh evidence may be introduced to challenger pardon under Article 42 Federal Constitution. Appellate Procedure - Admission of additional evidence - Interpretation and scope of Rule 7(3A) - Compatibility with common law principles. 1 Judicial Review - Leave stage - Attorney General's role under o.53 r 3(3) ROC 2012 - Whether duty to confirm or disclose documents - Burden of proof for disputed evidence - Distinction between procedural and respondent roles. Fresh Evidence - Application at appellate stage - Rule 7(3A) RCA 1994 - Whether codifies or displaces Ladd v Marshall - Threshold of "determining influence" vs "important influence". Constitutional Law - Royal pardon - Judicial review of Pardons Board decision - Whether justiciable - Whether fresh evidence may be introduced to challenge pardon under Article 42 Federal Constitution. Appellate Procedures - Admission of additional evidence - Interpretation and scope of Rule 7(3A) - Compatibility with common law principles. 1 Fortuna injunction 1 threshold test for grant of a stay, dismissal or a Fortuna injunction in cases where the debt in issue was subject to an arbitration clause 1 arbitration vis a vis winding up 1 statutory interpretation 1 section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1976 1 each Act should be construed within its own context and in line with its unique legislative intent 1 cannot import provisions from one statute to another 1 a statute is meant to be construed in light of its own terms and not by the terms of another statute 1 Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1575 1 Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation v Halimeda international Ltd [2024] UKPC 16) 1 mandatory stay under Art 8 of the Model Law 1 mandatory stay under section 10 of our Arbitration Act 2005 1 purpose and object of the Arbitration Act 2005 1 genuinely disputed debt on substantial grounds 1 nature and purpose of winding up proceedings 1 purpose and object of the insolvency provisions under the Companies Act 2016 1 Bank – Customer Relationship – Duty of confidentiality – Implied contractual term – Statutory duty under section 97(1) of BAFIA – Damages – Nominal damages – Failure to prove loss – Claim for general, aggravated and exemplary damages. 1 Court of Appeal's failure to award damages despite finding of liability deliberate disconnection of electricity supply after rectification of meter tampering special damages the evidential approach to be taken in relation to the proof of special damages exemplary damages whether exemplary damages are claimable in a claim for breach of contract refusal to expand law on exemplary damages special position of TNB as sole supplier of electricity for Peninsular Malaysia TNB's monopoly on the supply of electricity the effect of a failure to appeal against dismissal of claim for general damages the award of costs to the liable party the award of costs is at the discretion of court 1 Academic Literature; Assignment; Breach; Conflation; Illegality; Judicial Development; Judicial Notice; Judicial Precedents; Judicial Reasoning; Legal Certainty; Partial Failure; Partial Performance; Prospective Overruling; Repudiation; Restitution; Retrospective; Rule of Law; Statutory Interpretation; Test; Total Failure of Consideration; Unconscionability. 1 Malaysian’s position on recovering monies related to gambling or wagering and the application of section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956, and sections 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950. 1 Recovery of monies owed from credit facilities extended for gambling purposes 1 Best Endeavour; Burden of Proof; Commercial Contract; Construction; Contra Proferentem; Generalia Specialibus; Guarantee; Post-Formation Conduct; Reasonable Endeavour. 1 winding up - the scope of liquidators’ powers and liabilities under the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) - whether one joint liquidator may act alone if the other is conflicted - the extent to which creditors’ wishes must guide the court in appointing liquidators. 1 Civil Proceedings -Evidence – Admissibility-Documentary Evidence – Disputed Notations-Burden of Proof – Hearsay – Exclusion of Unverified Documents-Forgery – Requirement of Pleading-Prima Facie Case – Establishment - Judicial Precedent – Stare Decisis-Sections 101 & 102 Evidence Act 1950 – Burden of Proof-Section 73A Evidence Act – Documentary Statements-Trial Procedure – Marking of Exhibits-Failure to Call Witness – Adverse Inference-Tampering – Disputed Document Authenticity-Appellate Review – Substitution of Factual Findings-Part C Documents – Strict Proof Required-Legal vs Evidential Burden – Distinction- 1 arbitration dispute resolution enforcement of foreign arbitral award which has been registered in the seat court New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards UNCITRAL Model Law Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 Order 69 Rule 9 Rules of Court 2012 registration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards should the holder of a foreign confirmation judgment use REJA or MAA? approach by the court to review an arbitral award de novo hearing or minimal curial review trial of issues jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal kompetenz kompetenz doctrine jurisidictional challenge in the court of the seat of the arbitration submission to jurisdiction active remedy passive remedy recognition and enforcement of arbitration award setting aside of arbitration award UK's Administration of Justice Act 1920 UK's Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 lex specialis statutory purposive interpretation section 17A Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1976 importing legislative intent from one statute to another implied repeal of legislation by another extraterritorial merger approach ‘limited-in-scope’ merger theory parallel entitlement theory judgment laundering registering a judgment on a judgment fraud going to jurisdiction as opposed to fraud going to the merits fraud in the context of the actual dispute between the opposing parties extrinsic fraud intrinsic fraud a functional test focused on materiality and the availability of a remedy in the foreign court the enforcing court under REJA is not an appellate court primacy to the autonomy of arbitral proceedings primacy of arbitral awards comity reciprocity certainty and finality in litigation re-hearing on issues of fraud 1 Order 14 application - Summary judgment - Claim for liquidated damages - Late delivery of vacant possession - Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) - Commercial property (SOVO units) Conversion approval and building plan approval - Approvals to be obtained within 12 months from date of SPA Approval Period or six-month extension Extended Approval Period Time for delivery of vacant possession – 42 months completion period - Computation of time - Whether period to be calculated from date of the approval of the building plans (2.8.2012), or from the date of expiry of Extended Approval Period. Whether the period to be calculated from the date of last amended building plans approval (17.11.2015), or from the first approval of the building plans or in any event from the expiry of full 18-month Extended Approval Period. Interpretation of SPA - Commercial contract - Application of business common sense and commercially sensible approach - Time of the essence - Contra proferentem rule - Facts not in dispute - Pure question of law - Suitable for summary judgment – Qualifying phrase "where the context so admits" – Whether to apply purposive and contextual interpretation based on factual matrix - Harmonious and business common-sense construction. Whether there ought for some other reason to be a trial of the claim based on the principle in Miles v Bull [1968] 3 All ER 632. 1 Whether appellant may raise fresh question of law not raised at leave stage - Whether new question of law may be raised in Federal Court appeal beyond leave questions - Appeal confined to questions for which leave granted - Exception in limited circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice. 1 1. Whether witnesses enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for evidence given in judiciary proceedings. 2. Application of the doctrine of finality of litigation. 3. Whether the tort of malicious prosecution is applicable in civil proceedings in Malaysia. 4. Whether fraud based on perjury constitutes a recognised and actionable tort in Malaysian law. 1 right to appeal dismissal of interlocutory application to strike out pleadings Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 when the right to appeal vests whether the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is retrospective legislative intention behind the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 writ filed before 1 October 2022 striking out application filed before 1 October 2022 preliminary objection non-appealable decision pursuant to section 68(1)(f) of the CJA purposive approach to statutory interpretation statutory purposive approach section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 harmonious statutory interpretation state of the law prior to the amendment to section 68 position in law post-amendment of section 68 section 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 definition of the word 'decision' legislative intention behind the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Bill 1998 the general purpose of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 phrase ‘finally disposes of the rights of the parties’ test of finality definition of the word ‘ruling’ meaning of the phrase 'in the course of' contextual interpretation what constitutes a right of a party in litigation and how it is affected 1 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees card 1 section 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959 1 section 6(3) of the Immigration Act 1959 1 Order of Removal 1 section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1959 1 Order of Detention pending removal 1 section 34(1) of the Immigration Act 1959 1 whether detention was unlawful such as to warrant the grant of a writ of habeas corpus 1 interplay between the doctrine of separation of powers and the role of the judiciary as a check and balance on executive power 1 balance the liberty of the individual against the power of the state to exercise the power of detention in the interests of maintaining national security 1 personal liberty of the person 1 duty of inquiry 1 transgression of constitutionally permissible limits 1 the meaning of “shall be liable to be removed” 1 whether the Director-General properly exercised his discretion in making the order for the removal 1 insufficient consideration of relevant factors 1 length of time in detention 1 that the use of the words “such period as may be necessary” 1 the requirement of proportionality 1 Article 5(1) read with Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution 1 Alma Nudo Atenza v. PP & Another Appeal [2019] 5 CLJ 780 1 the measure used must be proportionate to the objective 1 the courts have wide powers to craft relief 1 wide discretion to mould the relevant relief to meet the needs of justice 1 The offence of rape under section 376(1) of the Penal Code. 1 The invocation of the procedures under section 265A (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1 Whether the provisions of section 265A (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code are unconstitutional. 1 Whether the denial of the appellant’s right to be heard at the inquiry stage as provided under section 265A (2) and (3) of the CPC constitutes a direct violation of the principles of natural justice entrenched under Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution (FC). 1 Whether the failure to consider the appellant’s section 112 statement was consider as a non-compliance of section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1 Corroborative evidence is not restricted to oral evidence of an independent witness only. Circumstantial evidence can also amount to corroboration if the circumstantial evidence is credible and supports the evidence of another witness. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Article 10(1)(b) Federal Constitution – Right to peaceful assembly - Article 10(2)(b) FC – Parliamentary restrictions on assembly rights - Article 8(1) FC – Equality before the law & proportionality - Article 4(1) FC – Void laws inconsistent with the Constitution - Peaceful assembly — Notification of assembly — Requirement of giving ten days’ notice to police — Organiser failed to give police ten days’ notice — Whether requirement to give notice reasonable — Whether non-compliance to give required notice detrimental to organiser — Whether in breach of safeguarding provisions — Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 s 9(1) & (5) 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Doctrine of proportionality - Whether s 9(5) PAA 2012 is a justified and balanced restriction - Criminalising failure to notify police (s 9(5)) disproportionately restricts the right to peaceful assembly - Violates Article 10(1)(b) FC - Legitimate Aim - Chilling Effect - Organisers face prosecution even for peaceful gatherings, discouraging exercise of constitutional rights 1 - leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 24.6.2025, which dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 27.10.2021, which dismissed the application for judicial review for order of Mandamus; - leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 24.6.2025, which allowed Registrar’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s order requiring the Registrar of Titles to transfer the land to Semantan Estate under section 417 National Land Code. 1 Whether O. 59, r. 16 or O. 59, r. 17 of the RC 2012 should apply - Whether the amount stated in the Bill of Costs was reasonable 1 Assessment of damages for breach of statutory duty. This is a judgment on the assessment of damages following the Federal Court’s finding that the Malaysian Bar breached its statutory duty under section 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 by circulating and tabling a motion against the plaintiff at its AGM instead of referring the matter to the Disciplinary Board. It was held that reputational harm, loss of opportunity and mental distress arising from this breach are compensable. However, claims for exemplary damages were dismissed for failing to meet the requisite threshold. A total of RM340,000.00 in damages was awarded applying principles of moderation and proportionality. 1 [1] The plaintiff filed an application for leave under O.46 r.2(3) Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012) seeking an abridgement of time to issue an execution writ against the defendant for a judgment dated 18.12.2013 be extended until 20.09.2025, with no order for costs. [2] I heard this application on 28.01.2025, and after perusing the cause papers filed and respective written submissions of the parties. I find that the plaintiff has failed to give compelling reasons to justify the delay in enforcing the impugned judgment, therefore this application dismissed with costs of RM2,000.00. 1 Assessment of damages. Damages assessed for negligence and breach of duty by the defendant causing damage to the plaintiff’s 132kV underground cable. The plaintiff was awarded RM7,650,621.11 for replacement costs and RM1,912,655.28 as general damages for administrative burdens and operational disruptions. The Court accepted the plaintiff’s claim for full indemnity against the third and fourth parties. It held that damages could not be limited to the physically damaged section of the cable affirming the principle of fair compensation. 1 PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Defendan memohon kebenaran lanjutan masa dan mengenepikan Perintah dan Penghakiman bertarikh 25.2.2015 serta kebenaran untuk memasukkan kehadiran dan pembelaan termasuk tuntutan balas dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh perintah – Alasan defendan adalah penyampaian Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan, pemerolehan penghakiman tidak teratur, selain defendan mempunyai pembelaan kerana wujud unsur frod dan salahnyataan dalam urusan jual beli tanah selain defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit – Serahan writ melalui perintah penyampaian ganti – Perintah penyampaian ganti tidak dicabar – 10 tahun 7 bulan berlalu sebelum permohonan difailkan – Alasan defendan tiada pengetahuan tentang Guaman ini – Sama ada penghakiman bertarikh 25.2.2015 diperolehi secara teratur – Sama ada defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit – Aturan 13 Kaedah 8 dan Aturan 81 Kaedah 7 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM). 1 Equitable occupation and statutory compensation under section of the 28(2) Civil Law Act 1956. This case concerns a dispute over a parcel of land between a registered proprietor and long-term occupiers claiming equitable rights under a family trust. The issues remitted by the Court of Appeal were whether the plaintiff was entitled to rental from the defendants and whether the defendants were entitled to compensation for improvements under section 28(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956. The High Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to rental as the sale was with notice of occupation and no tenancy existed. The defendants were awarded compensation having rebuilt the house in good faith believing in their beneficial interest. 1 1.The Defendant applied to set aside a consent judgment which was recorded with the Plaintiff on 4/2/2016. This application is made by virtue of Order 1A, 3(5), 41(13) and 92(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). 1 2. In the upshot the Court dismissed the Defendant’s application to set aside the consent judgement with a cost of RM3,000. 1 Assessment of damages following the Federal Court’s ruling that the defendant breached three contracts by failing to order the mandatory minimum of 250,000 battery grid panels per month. Rejecting the defendant’s expert methodology based on gross profit margins, the Court held that damages must reflect the contractually agreed conversion costs which constituted the plaintiff’s true compensation parameters given the exclusivity obligations and sunk investments. Damages were quantified at RM1,963,132.65 with additional orders for interest, expert fees and costs, reaffirming the principle that damages should restore the plaintiff to its contractual position. 1 RAYUAN INTERLOKUTORI: Rayuan oleh defendan kedua dan keempat kepada Hakim dalam Kamar terhadap keputusan Pendaftar bertarikh 4 Mac 2025 yang memberi kebenaran plaintif melaksanakan penghakiman bertarikh 31 Mac 2016 selepas tempoh enam tahun terhadap defendan-defendan – Plaintif hanya melaksanakan penghakiman terhadap defendan pertama melalui petisyen penggulungan pada 17 November 2021 – Tiada sebarang tindakan pelaksanaan diambil terhadap defendan kedua dan keempat sejak 31 Mac 2016 sehingga permohonan kebenaran difailkan – Menurut plaintif kelewatan tidak disengajakan dan permohonan ini tidak memprejudiskan defendan-defendan – Sama ada plaintif mempunyai alasan yang boleh diterima dan munasabah (plausible reasons) untuk kebenaran diberikan bagi menguatkuasakan penghakiman selepas enam tahun – Aturan 46 Kaedah 2(1) (a) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Seksyen 6 (1) (3) Akta Had Masa 1953. 1 Civil – Notice of Application for a committal proceeding against the Respondents for failure to adhere to the terms of the Consent Judgement– whether the Respondents breach the terms of the Consent Judgement– whether there is an unreasonable and an inordinate delay in executing the Consent Judgement – whether the Consent Judgement is enforceable without the penal notice 1 Civil procedure – a claim grounded on the tort of conspiracy to injure is for an unliquidated amount and a judgment in default in appearance has to be for an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed. It follows that a judgment in default entered for a liquidated amount as claimed by the plaintiff is an abuse of process and a nullity. Damages – punitive and exemplary damages are interchangeable and mean the same thing, and judgment cannot be entered for both although separately claimed 1 COMPANY LAW: Minority oppression – Assessment of damages under section 181 of the Companies Act 1965 – Scope of assessment proceedings following conclusive finding of liability at all three judicial levels – Whether assessment court may revisit question of entitlement to damages already determined at liability stage – Whether words "if any" in court order re-open question of entitlement or merely qualify quantum – Whether winding-up order alone constitutes adequate and complete remedy – Whether remedy in oppression petition is twofold – Whether assessment of damages is necessary to give effect to second limb of oppression remedy – Wide discretion of court under section 181 to fashion just and equitable relief – Compensatory principle applicable in oppression proceedings – Whether court may award damages to put injured minority shareholder in position as if oppression had not occurred 1 COMPANY LAW: Minority oppression – Reflective loss principle – Applicability of reflective loss principle in oppression proceedings – Whether reflective loss principle operates as complete bar to recovery at remedial stage once oppression has been established – Whether principle is confined to threshold inquiry of whether complaint is properly brought as personal action rather than derivative action – Distinction between two stages of oppression proceedings: determination of oppression and fashioning of remedy – Whether losses claimed by minority shareholder are personal and separate from those suffered by the company – Whether oppressive self-dealing transaction directed exclusively against minority shareholder takes losses outside reflective loss principle – Whether risk of double recovery is relevant consideration where company is in liquidation and has made no recovery – Whether obiter dicta of appellate court on reflective loss principle are binding in subsequent assessment proceedings 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Finality of judgment – Res judicata – Whether party may re-agitate at assessment stage a defence not raised at liability stage – Whether estoppel may be raised for first time in assessment proceedings as means of deflecting claim conclusively determined at liability stage – Whether appellate court observations made in different context bind lower court in subsequent proceedings – Weight of obiter dicta from higher courts 1 CONTRACT LAW: Options – Estoppel – Whether conduct or intention of option holder not to exercise an option at a particular point in time amounts to representation sufficient to found estoppel – Whether option holder's intention to exercise is relevant to valuation of the option – Whether option retains value independent of holder's present intention to exercise – Right but not obligation to exercise as source of option value 1 DAMAGES: Assessment of damages – Date of assessment – Appropriate date of valuation in oppression proceedings – Whether valuation date should be proximate to date of oppressive act rather than date of judgment – Whether early valuation date required in fairness to claimant where company has been deprived of existing contractual rights – Whether subsequent commercial deterioration caused by oppressor's own wrong may be relied upon to reduce damages payable – Causation – Whether causal link between oppressive act and claimed losses established – Whether unjust enrichment arises where damages awarded compensate for expropriation of specific contractual rights rather than failed investment 1 EVIDENCE: Expert evidence – Admissibility and weight – Criteria for preferring one expert's evidence over another – Whether expert who declines to perform any valuation of subject matter is of material assistance to court on question of quantum – Whether expert's conclusion that expropriated rights had no value is internally inconsistent with judicial findings of oppression 1 1. Both parties, Lee Chai Seng (Applicant) and Magnum Consortium Sdn. Bhd. (Intervener), filed an appeal and cross appeal to the Judge in Chambers against the decision of the Deputy Registrar (DR) in respect of the assessment of damages pursuant to a High Court Order dated 29.09.2011 (High Court Order). 2. The Court allowed Applicant’s appeal in part. The damages is calculated from 10.03.2011 until 29.09.2011 (High Court Order). The 5% interest per annum granted by the DR is affirmed based on Order 42 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court. 1 Yap Teck Ngian v Yap Hong Lang [2007] / Citation procedural mechanism / Citation / Revocation of grant of letters of administration / Order 72 Rules of the High Court 1980/ Citation does not determine substantive rights/ Orderly administration of justice / Revocation procedural compliance. 1 Arbitration - Agreement - Option clause - Whether clause offering choice between litigation and arbitration constitutes a binding arbitration agreement under s.10 Arbitration Act 2005. 1 Arbitration - Validity of agreement - Clause lacking express provisions on seat, number of arbitrators, and appointment process - Whether such omission renders arbitration agreement null, void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. 1 Arbitration - Kompetenz-kompetenz - Arbitral tribunal’s authority to rule on its own jurisdiction - Applicability of s.18 Arbitration Act 2005 -Test under s.10 whether prima facie or full merits test. 1 Arbitration - Construction of arbitration clause - Interpretation of word “may” - Whether it creates an enforceable obligation to arbitrate once a party elects to do so 1 Stay of court proceedings - Application under s.10 Arbitration Act 2005 - Requirements - Whether stay should be granted despite one party having initiated litigation. 1 Court intervention - Extent and limitations - Court’s intervention confined to situations explicitly provided by Arbitration Act 2005 - Section 8. 1 Contracts - Restraint of legal proceedings - Section 29 Contracts Act 1950 - Exception for valid arbitration agreements. 1 Interpretation - Arbitration clauses with dual-option (litigation or arbitration) - Whether mutual option to elect mode of dispute resolution undermines existence of arbitration agreement. 1 Appeal against decision of High Court – Originating Summons – seeking for declarations and consequential reliefs – ownership of property - absence of clear statements or concrete declaration of trust in transfer documents – Form 14A First Schedule of National Land Code – whether the transfer of a family home from mother to son in 1995 was an inter vivos gift or held on trust for the siblings – failure to prove three elements to constitute a trust in law - certainty of intention - certainty of object - certainty of subject matter - there was no express declaration or contemporaneous evidence of such intention - The Plaintiff’s prolonged inaction for over 25 years amounted to laches and acquiescence, thereby disentitling them from the relief sought 1 In this case, the dispute revolved around a Joint Venture Agreement to develop a columbarium on land designated for a Chinese cemetery. The Court of Appeal found that the Association lacked the legal capacity to enter into the agreement, as it neither owned the land nor had the right to manage it. Consequently, the Joint Venture Agreement was deemed void. The High Court’s decision was upheld on appeal, with RM 25,000.00 in costs awarded to the Company. 1 Lifting of corporate veil- company is being used as a façade to conceal true facts, commit fraud, or evade legal obligations- companies operated as a single and unified entity with shared resources, branding and administration including a common payroll system-Labour office-responsibility of deciding disputes between an employer and employee in respect of wages and other payments in cash due as well as any terms of contract between an employer and employee-“as he deems just”-wages-Employment Act- work done in respect of his contract of service-basic salary of the Respondents was a fixed component of their remuneration and this was not subject to reductions dependent upon trips undertaken- section 7A of the Employment Act 1955 - alteration of a condition of service or a term more favourable to an employee. 1 Application for extension of time to file and serve the appeal records- application for strike out the Notices of Appeal and Memorandums of Appeal Rule 18 of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 Reason allowing the extension of time applications- Basis of refusal Striking Out 1 Application for extension of time to file and serve the appeal records application for strike out the Notices of Appeal and Memorandums of Appeal Rule 18 of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 Reasons allowing the extension of time applications- Basis of refusal Striking Out 1 Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants 2007 (Act 670) - Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Amendment) Act 2022 (A1644) - Offence of smuggling of migrants - faktor kepentingan awam - keseriusan kesalahan – faktor mitigasi – hukuman pemenjaraan tidak berpadanan - manifestly inadequate 1 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – whether sentence imposed is excessive - representation – Public Prosecutor – alternative charge – section 39B(1)(a) – section 39B(2) section 12(2) DDA – section 39A(2) DDA – guilty plea – mitigation and sentencing - pleaded guilty to alternative charge - at the earliest available opportunity – demonstrate genuine remorse and repentance – aggravating factor – severe sentence – previous conviction – committed again after release – similar drug offences – given substantial quantity of drugs involved – intended to be repackaged in smaller plastics – offence of similar nature – previous conviction did not deter – persistent offender – no remorse – gap between previous conviction and current offence too short 1 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama – Isu: sama ada dadah dijumpai di poket hadapan sebelah kiri tertuduh? - versi pembelaan adalah pihak polis sengaja hendak mengenakan tertuduh - keterangan sokongan - kawalan dan jagaan dadah - keterangan dokumentar - percanggahan material di dalam keterangan - pembohongan dan penafian kosong – kredibiliti saksi - anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 1 Section 45A(1) Road Transport Act 1987; driving a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit; specimens of breath; breath test under section 45B and 45C(1) RTA; Motor Vehicles (Breath, Blood and Urine Test) Rules 1995. 1 Civil-Procedure — Appeal — Magistrate’s Court jurisdiction — IOU document — Thumbprint authenticity confirmed by expert—No rebuttal evidence from the appellant — Burden of proof under Evidence Act ss.101, 103 discharged — respondent’s explanation of funds accepted — appellant’s denial speculative, inconsistent, unsupported — Counterclaim seeking declaratory relief misconceived and barred by Subordinate Courts Act 1948 s.65 — Findings of credibility by trial court not disturbed on appeal — Principle of appellate non-interference reaffirmed where there are no error or misdirection shown. 1 CIVIL APPEAL : Judgment in default of appearance - Application to set aside - Regular judgment - Defence on the merits – Delay - Judgment in default was regularly obtained following proper service of the writ - Appellant failed to disclose a bona fide defence on the merits; alleged pricing dispute based on LME movements was unsupported by contractual evidence and contradicted by acceptance of goods and part-payment - No satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay in filing the setting-aside application - The Sessions Court correctly applied the law and exercised its discretion - Appeal dismissed. 1 TORT: Indemnity — Electricity theft by sub-tenant — Whether tenant liable — Whether cause of action against tenant lies in tort or contract — Whether landlord misled court in obtaining leave to issue third-party notice — Sub-tenant admitted sole wrongdoing — Whether Sessions Court erred in allowing third-party proceedings against tenant CIVIL PROCEDURE: Third-party proceedings — Leave to issue third-party notice — Whether court retains discretion to set aside notice post-leave — Whether prima facie case shown — Misrepresentation of material facts at leave stage 1 Rayuan Sivil — Campur tangan Mahkamah Tinggi — Salah arah undang-undang — Dapatan fakta tidak selamat — Inferens tidak disokong keterangan - kemalangan jalan raya — Kecuaian — Liabiliti — Beban pembuktian — Imbangan kebarangkalian — Kegagalan plaintif membuktikan penglibatan kenderaan defendan/diinsuranskan — Percanggahan keterangan — Kredibiliti saksi — Percanggahan masa dan arah perjalanan — Kelewatan laporan polis — Kegagalan mengenal pasti nombor pendaftaran kenderaan — Keterangan perubatan awal menunjukkan kemungkinan motosikal terbabas sendiri- insurans kenderaan motor — Tanggungan penanggung insurans — Tanggungan terbitan — Hanya timbul selepas liabiliti dibuktikan terhadap kenderaan yang diinsuranskan - frod/penipuan — Dakwaan frod —Standard pembuktian dalam kes sivil — Tahap kebarangkalian lebih tinggi — Sama ada frod dibuktikan / plaintif tetap gagal pada beban asas - gantirugi — Kuantum — Award keterlaluan — Pertindihan kecederaan (overlap) — Penilaian global — kehilangan keupayaan pendapatan — Multiplier — Had statutori — Seksyen 28(2)(d)(i) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 1 CONTRACT: Advocate and solicitor – Recovery of legal fees – Claim for unpaid fees for litigation services rendered over multiple years – Whether defendant acted as principal or agent – Whether plea under s. 183 of Contracts Act 1950 available – Whether plaintiff estopped – Whether constructive trust or breach of fiduciary duty established. LIMITATION: Legal fees – Continuous services and subsequent property settlement agreement – Whether debt acknowledged in writing within meaning of s. 26(2) and s. 27 of Limitation Act 1953 – Whether limitation period postponed – Whether delay induced by ongoing negotiations – Whether claim time-barred. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Whether Sessions Court’s findings ought to be disturbed – Whether findings were against the weight of evidence – Plaintiff failed to identify object struck or prove existence of hazard – Patrol records unshaken – Whether defendant proved reasonable system of inspection TORT: Negligence – Highway concessionaire – Alleged collision with foreign object on expressway – Whether defendant failed to remove or detect hazard – No evidence of object – No photographs or forensic support – Plaintiff’s evidence inconsistent and speculative – Whether breach of duty established – Whether strict liability applies EVIDENCE: Burden of proof – Plaintiff failed to prove existence of object or defendant’s knowledge – No call logs or corroboration of PLUSline report –Burden lies on plaintiff to prove negligence 1 Prosedur Sivil – Rayuan – Notis rayuan – Pemfailan lewat – Permohonan menjadikan pemfailan teratur – Lanjutan masa – Sama ada pemfailan notis rayuan di luar tempoh masa menjadikan rayuan tidak sah dan terbatal – Tafsiran perkataan “hendaklah” (“shall”) – Peruntukan mandatori – Aturan 55 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Kuasa Mahkamah melanjutkan masa selepas tamat tempoh – Aturan 3 Kaedah 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Kelewatan sama ada fatal – Prejudis – Sama ada prejudis boleh dipampas melalui kos – Budi bicara kehakiman – Kepentingan keadilan – Ketidakpatuhan prosedur – Sama ada pelanggaran teknikal menafikan hak substantif rayuan 1 Kontrak – Jual beli kenderaan terpakai secara pukal – Variasi kontrak melalui perlakuan pihak-pihak – Sama ada e-mel dan penyata akaun yang mengecualikan dua unit kenderaan menunjukkan persetujuan terhadap penolakan – Sama ada pembetulan kemudiannya boleh membatalkan variasi yang telah berlaku – Keterangan – Beban pembuktian – Kegagalan memanggil saksi material (kerani penyedia penyata akaun) – Inferens di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 – Sama ada mahkamah bicara berhak membuat inferens tersebut – Rayuan – Prinsip campur tangan mahkamah rayuan terhadap dapatan fakta – Sama ada dapatan hakim sesyen jelas salah atau tanpa penilaian kehakiman yang wajar – Tuntutan balas – Kos pembaikan dan penyelenggaraan – Sama ada dibuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian – Rayuan ditolak dengan kos RM5,000.00. 1 Land Law — Acquisition of land — Market value — Injurious affection — Severance — Multiple land references heard together — High Court sitting with government assessor and private assessor under s 40 Land Acquisition Act 1960 (‘LAA’) — Five neighbouring lots compulsorily acquired for 275kV electricity transmission line — Whether market value under para 2(a) First Schedule disturbed — Whether applicant established inadequacy of land administrator’s uniform rate — Court held determination of market value a finding of fact — Comparative method safest guide — Applicant’s comparables found materially dissimilar. Land Law — Acquisition of land — Compensation — Injurious affection — Para 2(d) First Schedule LAA — Whether damage “sustained or likely to be sustained” compensable in reference proceedings — High-voltage transmission corridor (‘rentis’) physically encumbered remaining land — EMF fears and public perception alone insufficient — However permanent physical restrictions and diminution of utility established — Injurious affection question of fact — Court accepted unanimous assessors’ findings and awarded additional compensation for injurious affection across five lots — Severance allowed where land physically divided, but refused where residual land remained contiguous — Other claims (disturbance, restoration costs) rejected for want of evidence . 1 Industrial Relations — Dismissal — Misconduct — Sale of used tyres to blacklisted workshop — Internal email dated 22 February 2021 prohibiting dealings for repair and maintenance only — No clear, specific and unequivocal instruction prohibiting sale of used tyres — Whether misconduct established — Industrial Court erred in law and fact by extending scope of instruction — No evidence of personal gain or dishonesty — Failure to distinguish negligence from misconduct — Proportionality of punishment — Appellant with 34 years’ unblemished service — Dismissal disproportionate — Award set aside — Matter remitted to Industrial Court for assessment of compensation 1 CIVIL APPEAL: Industrial relations - Appeal – s.33C Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Dismissal - Constructive dismissal - Burden of proof - Medical fitness – Remedies -Appeal against Industrial Court award dismissing claim of dismissal without just cause or excuse - Appellate intervention limited to errors of law or perversity - No express or constructive dismissal proven; no termination or resignation letter issued - Appellant unilaterally treated himself as dismissed by ultimatum - Employer justified in requiring full medical clearance before resumption of duties - No evidence of coercion, duress or fundamental breach of contract - Burden of proof not discharged - Alleged misconduct irrelevant absent dismissal - No entitlement to reinstatement or compensation - Appeal dismissed; award affirmed. 1 Legal Profession — Disciplinary proceedings — Solicitor’s undertaking — Conditional undertaking issued by Legal Assistant — Firm discharged before receipt of funds — Cheque returned undeposited — Whether undertaking matured into binding obligation — Whether Legal Assistant personally liable for firm issued undertaking — Whether termination of retainer extinguished authority — Whether disciplinary proceedings flawed — Absence of complainant at inquiry — Denial of cross-examination rights — Standard of proof not stated — Increase of fine by Disciplinary Board without reasons — Whether serious procedural irregularities vitiated proceedings — Whether prejudice caused to solicitor — Whether decision of Disciplinary Board and Disciplinary Committee liable to be set aside — Legal Profession Act 1976 ss 94(2)(c), 94(3)(d), 100, 103, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E, 138 — Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017 rr 14, 16, 27 1 Damages — Assessment — Medical negligence — Failure to diagnose and treat respiratory distress — Delayed medical intervention — Child suffered prolonged complications before passing away — Defendants admitted liability — Quantum of damages to be determined Damages — Special damages — Fees for specialist opinion, court appearances, and funeral expenses — Claims supported by evidence — Court allowed full claim of RM 22,180.00 Damages — General damages — Pain and suffering of the deceased — Prolonged distress due to inadequate medical care — Court awarded RM 300,000.00 Damages — Aggravated damages — Exceptional negligence by defendants — Failure to escalate care and delayed transfer — Emotional distress of parents — Suppression of medical records — Breach of contract — Award of RM 500,000.00 granted Damages — Exemplary and vindicatory damages — Claim dismissed — No evidence of malicious, oppressive, or unconstitutional conduct by defendants Costs — Plaintiffs sought RM 350,000.00 for getting-up fees — Court found claim excessive — Reasonable sum of RM 80,000.00 allowed, plus RM 21,333.85 for out-of-pocket expenses — Total costs awarded RM 101,333.85. Interest — 4% per annum on special damages from 5 April 2018 to judgment — 8% per annum on general and aggravated damages from 6 May 2021 to judgment — 5% per annum on total judgment sum until full payment — Allocator fee not payable 1 TORT – Negligence – Duty of care – Pregnancy in workplace – Employer’s duty to assess occupational risks upon disclosure of pregnancy – Failure to conduct risk assessment under Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA) – Whether statutory duty breached – Whether light duty unjustifiably denied despite oral request – Whether internal policy requiring written application too rigid – Duty of proactive response under OSHA sections 15 and 16 – Whether breach of duty materially increased risk of miscarriage. TORT – Negligence – Causation – Link between employer’s omissions and miscarriage – Application of ‘material contribution’ test – ‘But for’ test inapplicable where multiple contributing factors – Expert evidence supports workplace stress as material contributor – Trifling contributions excluded – Legal threshold of causation met. TORT – Negligence – Psychiatric injury – Whether moderate depression following miscarriage was foreseeable – Emotional harm not too remote – Expert psychiatric evidence unchallenged – Liability established. TORT – Vicarious liability – Public hospital staff – Government of Malaysia liable under Government Proceedings Act 1956, section 5 – Acts of supervisors within scope of public duties – Systemic institutional failures established. 1 Tort: Negligence Damages – Assessment of quantum of damages – child suffered cerebral palsy from birth – proper multiplier to be adopted – whether damages should be awarded for rehabilitation and treatment at private hospital – whether quantum awarded is reasonable 1 PRISON: Duties of prison authorities – Breach of statutory and constitutional duty – Convicted prisoner taken into custody healthy – Found dead at Tapah Prison with amputations and untreated infection – Failure to provide timely medical attention – Whether breach of Prisons Act 1995, Prisons Regulations 2000 and Lock-up Rules 1953 established – Whether constitutional right to life under Art. 5(1) Federal Constitution violated – Whether adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 to be drawn for non-production of CCTV TORT: Negligence – Duty of care – Non-delegable duty owed by custodial authorities – Prison officers and medical staff failing to treat necrotising fasciitis and notify family – Whether systemic neglect and omissions materially contributed to death – Whether Government vicariously liable under ss.5 & 6 Government Proceedings Act 1956 TORT: Misfeasance in public office – Elements to be proven – Suppression of evidence and reckless indifference by public officers – Whether omissions amount to deliberate misconduct– Whether estate of deceased entitled to aggravated damages notwithstanding prohibition of exemplary damages under s.8(2) Civil Law Act 1956 1 Tatacara Sivil – Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran – Permohonan untuk mengetepikan Penghakiman – Kelewatan menfailkan permohonan – Sama ada kelewatan dijelaskan secara memuaskan – Samada Penghakiman diperoleh secara teratur – Penyampaian mengikut kontrak melalui pos berdaftar prabayar – Penyampaian dianggap sempurna (deemed service) – Aturan 10 k.3, Aturan 42 k.13 dan Aturan 92 k.4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Sama ada wujud pembelaan bermerit – Perbankan Islam – Pembiayaan Komoditi Murabahah – Klausa percepatan – Hak menuntut Harga Jualan Bank sepenuhnya selepas default – Sama ada tuntutan pra-matang – Ibra’ – Rebat keuntungan belum diperoleh – Sama ada ibra’ terpakai hanya dalam penyelesaian awal dan bukan dalam situasi keingkaran – Jaminan – Hak pemiutang menuntut penjamin tanpa perlu merealisasikan cagaran terlebih dahulu 1 Prosedur Sivil – Penghakiman terus – Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Permohonan plaintif untuk penghakiman terus – Sama ada defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang boleh dibicarakan (isu triable) – Sama ada penafian kosong dalam pernyataan pembelaan memadai – Kegagalan memfailkan afidavit jawapan – Sama ada isu yang dibangkitkan dalam hujahan tetapi tidak diplid boleh dipertimbangkan – Pihak terikat kepada pleadings – Kontrak – Perjanjian pelaburan digantikan oleh perjanjian penyelesaian – Kesan perjanjian baharu mengatasi kontrak terdahulu – Pelanggaran perjanjian penyelesaian – Liabiliti penjamin – Keterangan – Pengakuan dalam surat dan pembayaran sebahagian – Estopel daripada menafikan penerimaan dana – Faedah dan kos – Budibicara mahkamah – Penghakiman terus dibenarkan dengan kos. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contract - Sale of goods - Counterfeit goods - Breach of condition – Refund - Restitution - Damages - Defendant admitted supplying unauthentic ball bearings, amounting to fundamental breach under Sale of Goods Act 1957 - Plaintiff entitled to rescind contract, but refund of purchase price conditional upon return of goods to effect restitution. - Misrepresentation not established as it was not pleaded and statement relied upon was post-contract - Claims for replacement and dismantling costs dismissed as premature and unproven - Loss of profit allowed in reduced sum - Claim for reputational loss dismissed - Judgment partly for plaintiff. 1 Distribution — Administration of estates — Small estate — Distribution by Land Administrator — Plaintiff’s suit to set aside distribution order made under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955, alleging fraud and omission by the Defendants. — The Defendants applied to strike out the writ under Order 18 rule 19(1) ROC 2012. — Whether the High Court has no original jurisdiction to invalidate a distribution order; the exclusive remedy lies in appeal under section 29 of the 1955 Act. Citing Fatimah binti Mat Akir [1977] 1 MLJ 107 — Whether collateral challenges through fresh suits should be allowed when the Plaintiff and his family had knowledge of the distribution order since 2015, affirmed it in later proceedings, and yet failed to appeal. — Whether equity, laches, and estoppel further barred the claim. — Whether the action was found to be jurisdictionally unsustainable, inequitable, and an abuse of process, and as such ought to be struck out to preserve finality and certainty in estate administration. 1 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND — Nomination — Challenge to validity — Whether court may look behind formally registered EPF nomination — Allegation of incapacity and procedural impropriety — Whether suspicion sufficient to invalidate statutory nomination. EVIDENCE — Presumptions — Section 114 illustration (e) Evidence Act 1950 — Presumption of regularity of official acts — Whether acts of EPF officers presumed honestly and conscientiously performed — Absence of cogent contrary evidence 1 Tatacara Sivil — Penghakiman atas pengakuan — Aturan 27 kaedah 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Pengakuan fakta — Pengakuan dalam pliding — Pengakuan melalui surat — Confirmation of Balance (pengesahan audit) — Sama ada pengakuan jelas dan tidak bersyarat — Bidang kuasa Mahkamah memasukkan penghakiman tanpa perbicaraan penuh — Pertikaian fakta/isu kontrak usaha sama — Kesan kewujudan tuntutan balas — Penghakiman bagi jumlah RM1,200,000.00 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE : Injunction – Interlocutory mandatory injunction – High threshold – Whether applicant required to establish unusually strong and clear case – Distinction between prohibitory and mandatory injunction – Mandatory injunction – Degree of assurance – Whether court slow to grant mandatory relief where validity of underlying contract seriously disputed - Equity – Injunction – Adequacy of damages – Commercial dispute – Quantifiable loss – Whether damages constitute adequate remedy – Mere commercial inconvenience not irreparable harm. 1 SIVIL – Pindaan pliding – Permohonan meminda Pernyataan Tuntutan – Difailkan hampir kepada tarikh bicara penuh – Sama ada pindaan bersifat substantif – Tuntutan baharu berhubung pinjaman persahabatan – Kelewatan tanpa justifikasi munasabah – Pertukaran kaunsel sebagai alasan kelewatan – Prejudis kepada Defendan – Disiplin pengurusan kes – Budi bicara Mahkamah – Aturan 20 Kaedah 5(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Keseimbangan keadilan antara pihak-pihak – Permohonan ditolak – Kos dan thrown away costs diberikan kepada setiap Defendan. 1 COMPANY LAW: Shares – Transfer of shares – Whether Defendant acquired 50,000 shares – Whether Form 32A sufficient without registration – Consideration – Consent order premised on alleged shareholding – Whether Defendant gave valid consideration – Whether consent orders based on mistake or fraud – Restitution – Unjust enrichment CIVIL PROCEDURE: Consent judgments – Setting aside – Total failure of consideration – Whether consent orders vitiated by mistake or fraud – Whether rescission warranted COSTS: Party and party costs – Whether award against non-party justified – Whether 2nd Defendant properly named in counterclaim – Not a non-party costs scenario 1 The Plaintiffs applied for specific discovery of bank statements from the Defendant, alleging misuse of fiduciary position and unauthorised fund transfers amounting to RM4.4 million. They relied on contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, AMLA notices, and police reports. The Defendant resisted the application, contending that all transactions were authorised by a third party and that the application was speculative and reversed the burden of proof. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Vacant Possession – Who is the lawful registered proprietor of the lands - Process of alienation of the lands - Whether the Defendants have a legitimate right to remain on the lands. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Strata Law — Joint Management Body — Statutory and Fiduciary Duties — Locus Standi of Individual Proprietors — Primacy of Collective Governance under the Strata Management Act 2013 — Judicial Intervention Limited to Illegality or Mala Fides — Appellate Restraint Individual parcel proprietors commenced proceedings alleging mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and improper utilisation of maintenance and sinking funds by the Joint Management Body (JMB). The issue arose as to whether individual proprietors possessed standing to pursue claims relating to collective management and whether the court should intervene in matters governed by the statutory strata framework. 1 Civil Procedure — Private caveat — Removal of caveat — Application under ss 327 and 329 National Land Code — Whether caveator has subsisting caveatable interest — Effect of consent judgment — Defendant having fully complied with consent judgment —Obligation to comply strictly with express terms — Failure to withdraw caveat contrary to consent judgment - Caveat required to be withdrawn upon satisfaction of conditions — Caveat founded on contingent monetary claim — Whether claim for additional sum under special express condition constitutes caveatable interest — No present proprietary interest — Caveat cannot be used to secure or protect disputed monetary claim — Balance of justice 1 Prosedur sivil – Pembatalan pliding – Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1)(a) KKM 2012 – Fitnah – Kegagalan memplidkan perkataan fitnah secara spesifik – Keseluruhan penerbitan didakwa sebagai fitnah – Tindakan jelas tidak dapat dipertahankan – Malicious falsehood – Kegagalan mengenal pasti kenyataan palsu – Mahkamah tidak boleh membaiki kecacatan pliding – Tindakan dibatalkan dengan kos 1 Procedural non-compliance – Striking-out under O 34 – Persistent default – Non-attendance – Pre-trial directions ignored – Defendant's defence struck out – Judgment entered for plaintiffs– Where parties repeatedly failed to comply with case-management directions under O 34 r 1(1) and r 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2012, and remained absent from pre-trial proceedings despite indulgences, the Court is empowered under O 34 r 1(3), r 2(3) and r 6(1) to strike out the defences – Defendants' conduct amounted to procedural abuse – Court invoked its case-management jurisdiction to enter judgment in full for the plaintiffs 1 Constitutional Law – Jurisdiction – Whether civil court or Syariah Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine application for declaration of a person’s identity. Whether ab initio or renunciation case – Whether identity card – proof of a person’s religion. Federal Constitution – Article 121(1A) - Syariah Court (Perak) Enactment – s.17(2)(b)(xiv) - Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 – s. 2 - Rules of Court 2012 – O. 53 - Specific Relief Act 1950 – s. 41 1 Civil Procedure — Execution — Stay — Stay of order for sale pending application to set aside judgment in default — Foreclosure as action in rem distinct from in personam claim — Judgment in default obtained while case management ongoing — Allegation of procedural irregularity and mala fides — Dispute on quantum and offer to restructure — Whether special circumstances present — Whether foreclosure should be stayed to prevent injustice — Court’s inherent jurisdiction under O 92 r 4 to safeguard procedural fairness — Whether pending application may be rendered academic if stay refused — Whether balance of justice justified preserving status quo 1 Companies and corporations — Shares — Transmission and transfer of shares — Whether shares devolving from deceased shareholder to beneficiaries under will constitute transmission or transfer — Executor obtained probate and caused partial transfer of shares to one beneficiary with stamp duty paid — Executor later requested remaining shares to be registered in names of other beneficiaries without Form 32A or stamp duty — Company refused registration — Whether executor’s assent perfects transmission or separate transfer required — Whether Articles of Association restrict registration of beneficiaries except through proper instrument of transfer — Whether directors may exercise discretion in registration — Whether court may override mandatory requirements of Companies Act 2016 and company Articles — Companies Act 2016 ss 33, 50, 103, 105(1), (4), 109; Probate and Administration Act 1959 s 12. 1 LAND LAW: Lease — Option to renew — Whether lessee validly exercised renewal right — Whether lessors bound to grant renewed lease — Whether new terms or dealership conditions affected enforceability — Whether renewal right survived expiry — Whether continued possession constituted trespass — National Land Code ss 215(3), 216 — Contracts Act 1950 s 38 CONTRACT: Specific performance — Valid exercise of option to renew — Refusal to perform and imposition of extraneous conditions — Whether breach of contract — Equitable right to renewal — Adequacy of damages — Availability of injunction — Principle of sanctity of contract reaffirmed PROCEDURE: Originating summons — Appropriateness of mode of commencement — Whether issues purely legal and documentary 1 Contract — Construction contract — Adjudication under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Adjudicator found in favour of subcontractor — Main contractor applied to set aside and stay adjudication decision — Whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction under s 15(d) CIPAA — Whether adjudicator acted with bias or failed to act impartially under s 15(c) — Whether failure to consider “without prejudice” admission letter breached natural justice — Whether adjudicator obliged to consider all defences raised in adjudication response — Whether failure to consider uncertified claims invalidates adjudication — Whether decision should be set aside — Whether enforcement allowed where award remains without being stayed or set aside, or superseded — Whether condition under s 28(1) & (2) CIPAA satisfied for enforcement of adjudication decision 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Removal of Private Caveat - sections 327(1) and 417 of the National Land Code 2020 (NLC) – Purchaser brought a land - under a Sale and Purchase Agreement - existence of a caveat - rendered the completion impossible - Whether the Respondent has locus standi to lodge and maintain the caveat on behalf of the wound-up Company - Removal of the caveat under sections 327(1) and 417 of the National Land Code 2020. 1 LAND LAW: Private caveat – Application for removal under s 327 National Land Code – Directors lodged caveat to protect company land – Substantive suit alleging fraud and forgery filed – Whether “real and genuine interest” established – Whether case distinguished from Hew Sook Ying ‘s case – Whether bona fide dispute affecting validity of title. 1 Civil procedure – Application to set-aside – Order for Possession under O.89 ROC 2012 – Defendant alleged non-service, breach of natural justice, and lack of locus standi – Surau committee claimed land was public reserve – Plaintiff proved registered title and valid service – Prior suit withdrawn without liberty to refile – Surau deregistered by JAIPk, confirmed by MAIPk – Defendant lacked standing – Abuse of process – Order for Possession lawfully obtained – Application dismissed with costs. 1 Civil Procedure — Declaratory relief — Judgment in Default (JID) — Whether JID obtained without leave under section 471(1) Companies Act 2016 — Whether the application is devoid of merit and an abuse of process — Whether the Plaintiff had affirmed the judgment by conduct, made substantial payments, and obtained benefit by striking out a winding-up petition based on the same JID — Equity — Maxims of equity — He who seeks equity must do equity — He who comes into equity must come with clean hands — Whether Plaintiff acted fairly — Whether restitution claim sustainable — Whether Plaintiff approbated and reprobated — Abuse of court process — Whether Court’s equitable jurisdiction ought to be exercised. 1 Housing Development — Sinking Fund — Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC) — whether funds to be paid to Residents’ Association or to individual purchasers — Trust obligation under DMC — Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations and Strata Management Act 2013 — whether equitable set-off applicable for arrears of service charges 1 Company Law — Winding-up — Action against company under members’ voluntary liquidation — Whether leave of court required — Section 451(2) of Companies Act 2016 — Section 263(2) of Companies Act 1965 — Whether proceedings commenced without leave are procedurally defective — Rationale for requiring leave — To prevent overlapping claims and protect company assets — Whether Plaintiff’s application filed with malice — Vexatious and abuse of court process — Whether online meeting valid — Section 327 of Companies Act 2016 — Whether Liquidator’s statutory powers override company’s Articles — Rule 118 of Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 — Whether Liquidator may chair meeting. 1 Prosedur sivil — Penzahiran dokumen — Penzahiran spesifik — Aturan 24 kaedah 3 dan 7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — dokumen yang dipohon mestilah relevan dan material bagi pelupusan isu sebenar — Dokumen dalam milikan, kawalan atau kuasa — Penentuan isu sebenar — Budi bicara Mahkamah — Kepentingan keadilan — Dakwaan fishing expedition —Kepentingan benefisial – dokumen asas pewarisan dan identiti waris – locus standi. 1 LAND LAW: Private caveat — Removal — Whether caveatable interest disclosed — Sale and Purchase Agreement with special condition — consent judgment superseding earlier contractual rights — Whether the MBI “lulus bersyarat” letter did trigger the Special Express Condition, as the approval remained conditional and subject to unmet technical requirements — Whether the defendants possessed present legal or equitable proprietary interest — Whether a contingent contractual expectancy sufficient to sustain a caveat under s 323 NLC — Whether the consent judgment carried finality equivalent to an adjudicated decision, thereby barring the defendants from re-litigating or reviving matters available at the time but not raised — Whether issue estoppel applies — Whether the caveat failed the first stage of the Luggage Distributors test, as the grounds in Form 19B disclosed no present caveatable interest. 1 Judicial review application to quash registration of land and compel re-registration dismissed. No reviewable “decision” under O.53 r.2(4) ROC 2012 as Registrar acted pursuant to court orders ─ proper remedy lies in civil enforcement of consent judgment. ─ Application time-barred under O.53 r.3(6), being filed well beyond the three-month statutory limit; strict compliance is jurisdictional ─ Further, lease expired and land reverted to State Authority, rendering proceedings academic. ─ Court declines to act in vain and in futility. Application dismissed with no order as to costs. 1 Judicial Review – Public employment – Dismissal – Failure to give contemporaneous reasons – Procedural unfairness – Right to meaningful judicial review – Whether silence in statute excuses duty to give reasons – Disciplinary jurisdiction – Whether public service rules applicable to conduct committed before entry into public service – Whether State authority acted ultra vires – Remedies limited to reinstatement and back pay is appropriate relief to cure procedural irregularity 1 Industrial Law – Judicial review – Constructive dismissal – Award of Industrial Court – Assessment of compensation and backwages – Whether allowances form part of last drawn salary – Whether constructive dismissal entitles employee to gratuity and retirement benefits – Application of s 30(6A) and Second Schedule, Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Statutory cap of 24 months’ backwages – Scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 – Distinction between appeal and review – No illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety established – Judicial review dismissed with costs of RM6,000.00. 1 Judicial Review – Certiorari – Application to quash award of Industrial Court – Claimant argued retrenchment exercise was mala fide – whether company acted in good faith by employing someone from outside – whether the applicant’s duties & responsibilities were redundant. 1 PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN: Permohonan di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah 3(2) Kaeda-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Perayu memohon untuk Perintah Deklarasi dan Certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan Award TTPM yang bertarikh 29/4/2024 – Sama ada terdapat ‘downgrade’ dalam pakej yang diberikan oleh Perayu – Sama ada jumlah award yang diputuskan oleh Responden Pertama adalah berpatutan. 1 Semakan kehakiman – Undang-undang pentadbiran – Pihak berkuasa tempatan – Perkhidmatan Pekerja Kontrak– Pelaksanaan spesifik tidak dibenarkan – Pengembalian bekerja tidak boleh diperintahkan – Mandamus – Akta Kehakiman 1964 dan Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 Semakan kehakiman - kewarganegaraan - Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Artikel 14(1)(b) - Jadual Kedua Bahagian II - kewarganegaraan melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang - pendaftaran kelahiran - pembetulan sijil kelahiran - Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) - keputusan pentadbiran - kegagalan memberi alasan - keadilan asasi - procedural fairness - Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service - pertimbangan relevan - kegagalan meneliti dokumen - bukti pertalian keluarga - ujian DNA - bapa kandung warganegara Malaysia - anak tidak sah taraf - Seksyen 17 Jadual Kedua/Bahagian III - MyKAS - pemastautin sementara - pemastautin tetap - statelessness - perintah certiorari - perintah mandamus - kuasa budi bicara 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Public officer – Dismissal – Teacher accused of prolonged absenteeism between 2015–2016 – No disciplinary action taken for seven years – Teacher transferred, promoted, and awarded Excellent Service Award – Sudden issuance of show cause letter in 2023 – Whether prolonged inaction amounted to condonation – Whether subsequent dismissal lawful – Whether disciplinary process complied with rules of natural justice – Whether punishment proportionate to alleged misconduct – Whether Respondents failed to consider mitigating factors ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Application to quash dismissal decision – Procedural unfairness – Seven-year delay in initiating disciplinary action – Failure to provide particulars of charge – Failure to give reasons for rejecting representation – Whether disciplinary authority failed to conduct inquiry with fairness – Whether legitimate expectation of continued employment created – Whether disciplinary action legally sustainable ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Natural justice – Right to fair hearing – Whether failure to furnish supporting documents violated natural justice – Whether failure to inform right of appeal rendered decision procedurally defective – Whether procedural lapses vitiated entire disciplinary process – Whether Respondents failed to apply relevant considerations ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Proportionality – Disciplinary action – Whether dismissal for absenteeism appropriate in light of personal hardships and subsequent performance – Whether less severe penalties more appropriate – Whether punishment excessive and irrational 1 Companies and Corporations — Winding up — Inability to pay debts — Statutory demand duly served — Presumption of insolvency under ss. 465(1)(e) and 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Judgment debt arising from court orders — No bona fide or substantial dispute — Filing of appeal not amounting to stay — Winding-up petition allowed with costs — Civil procedure — Interlocutory application rendered academic by subsequent winding-up order 1 Companies and Corporations — Winding up — Post-winding-up application — Power of court to terminate winding-up proceedings under s 493 Companies Act 2016 — Whether winding-up order may be terminated notwithstanding procedural regularity — Concealment of material information in winding-up petition — Draft audited financial statement showing unresolved liabilities — Whether petitioner denied existence of debt — Majority shareholders holding 56.6% equity supporting revival of family company — Need for shareholder investigation — Liquidator to cease further action — Costs of liquidation borne by applicants — Interests of justice. 1 Companies and Corporation – Winding Up – Company in liquidation – leave to commence proceedings – statutory stay – Companies Act 2016 – s. 471(1) – liquidator – protection from unnecessary litigation – prima facie and bona fide claim – caveat over land – proprietary dispute – balance of convenience – judicial discretion – application dismissed 1 Companies and Corporations — Winding up — Liquidator — Whether leave of the winding-up court is required to commence proceedings against a court-appointed liquidator — Whether the applicant established a prima facie case or demonstrated pecuniary loss to the company in various allegations — Whether allegations warrants the court intervention in the liquidation process. 1 FAMILY LAW: Execution – Garnishee proceedings – Garnishee Order Nisi – Garnishee Order Absolute – Scope and purpose of Order 49 Rules of Court 2012 – Whether court confined to enforcement and not re-litigation of matrimonial issues – Whether garnishee indebtedness established on affidavit evidence – Absence of bona fide dispute – Whether garnishee order absolute properly granted. Civil Procedure – Case management – Non-compliance with directions – Failure to file affidavit and submissions – No application for extension of time – No explanation to court – Court’s power to proceed – Order 34 rule 2(3) Rules of Court 2012 – Whether determination on available materials permissible – Whether denial of right to be heard. Family Law – Enforcement of financial orders – Execution proceedings arising from matrimonial order – Garnishee proceedings as lawful mode of enforcement – Court’s role limited to execution – Distinction between enforcement and substantive matrimonial dispute. 1 FAMILY LAW: Maintenance — Consent Order — Variation — Requirement of Substantial and Material Change of Circumstances — Finality of Settlement — Limited Scope of Appellate Interference 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Kesalahan dibawah Seksyen 39(A)(1) ADB 1952 - Rayuan Perayu (OKT) terhadap keputusan Majistret mensabitkan Perayu - Sama ada Majistret terkhilaf apabila memutuskan bahawa elemen- elemen pertuduhan berjaya dibuktikan – Sama ada Majistret telah gagal memberi pertimbangan terhadap percanggahan yang ada dalam kes pendakwaan – Sama ada pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah – Sama ada hukuman penjara yang yang dijatuhkan terlalu tinggi (excessive) tanpa mengambil kira “totality sentencing” dan “Trend of sentencing” - Sama ada prinsip-prinsip hukuman diambil kira sepenuhnya dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Rayuan Perayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Seksyen 15 (4) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 (Akta 297) – Perayu melanggar Perintah Pengawasan Polis yang dikeluarkan terhadap Perayu tanpa sebarang kebenaran atau kelulusan - Samada satu perintah pengawasan yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 15 Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 adalah sah selepas Seksyen 4 APJ 1959 yang menjadi asas kepada satu penahanan di bawah APJ 1959 telah didapati tidak berperlembagaan - Sama ada prinsip-prinsip hukuman diambil kira sepenuhnya dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Dadah Berbahaya - Rayuan oleh OKT terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Kesalahan dibawah Seksyen 39(A)(1) ADB 1952 — Hukuman dibawah Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pemilikan — Pengetahuan — Kawalan Fizikal dan Penguasaan — Inferens Buruk di bawah Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 — Kemasukan Keterangan Tidak Relevan — Kegagalan Keadilan yang Substantial — Had Campur Tangan Rayuan terhadap Sabitan dan Hukuman - Hukuman penjara yang yang dijatuhkan terlalu tinggi (excessive) tanpa mengambil kira “totality sentencing” dan “Trend of sentencing” - Prinsip-prinsip hukuman diambil kira sepenuhnya dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. 1 Criminal Law – Voluntarily causing hurt – section 323 read with section 326A Penal Code – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Credibility of complainant suffering from depressive disorder – Failure to produce documentary proof of marriage – One-sided and incomplete investigation - Whether conviction safe. 1 Rayuan jenayah — Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 — Pemakaian anggapan statutori di bawah Seksyen 37(k) — Sama ada pematuhan Seksyen 31A dibuktikan — Ujian saringan awal air kencing — Kebolehpercayaan test strip — Kegagalan menandakan Borang UPD-1 — Rantaian kawalan dan integriti sampel air kencing — Penemuan botol kecil dan inferens — Dapatan prima facie — Kesan tertuduh memilih untuk berdiam diri— Mahkamah Majistret tersalah arah dalam fakta dan undang-undang — Anggapan statutori tidak terpakai secara automatik dan memerlukan pembuktian fakta asas secara ketat — Kelemahan material dalam prosedur, dokumentasi dan rantaian kawalan menimbulkan keraguan munasabah — Keengganan tertuduh membela diri tidak boleh menampung kelemahan kes Pendakwaan — Sabitan tidak selamat — Rayuan dibenarkan — Sabitan dan hukuman diketepikan. 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Appellate court – Duty to assess whether conviction is safe – No error of law or fact shown – Trial court’s finding based on credible testimony – Conviction upheld CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence – Bare denial – Appellant unable to offer plausible explanation or alternative version – Vague claims of accident contradicted by consistent testimony and eyewitness evidence CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing – Discretion of trial judge – Sentence not manifestly excessive or inadequate – Appellate court slow to interfere – Sentencing discretion properly exercised – Sentence of imprisonment and fine affirmed CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prosecution – Failure to call witness – Prosecution not bound to call every witness – Evidence adduced sufficient to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt – No adverse inference drawn EVIDENCE: Corroboration – Sexual offence – Corroboration not mandatory where complainant’s evidence unusually convincing – Evidence of independent eyewitness present – Complainant’s version credible and consistent EVIDENCE: Credibility of witness – Trial court's findings on credibility – Complainant’s testimony clear and consistent despite cross-examination – No reason for appellate interference 1 CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Armed robbery and gang robbery — Penal Code ss 392, 395, 397 read with s 34 — Multiple offences committed on different dates and against different victims — Whether offences constituted one transaction — One transaction rule — Whether consecutive sentences justified — Totality principle — Whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive — Whether appellate intervention warranted 1 Criminal Law — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 — s 14(a) — Physical sexual assault — Whether Sessions Judge erred in rejecting defence as afterthought — Whether line of defence was put during cross-examination — Whether failure to evaluate defence constituted material misdirection — Whether misdirection occasioned miscarriage of justice Evidence — Cross-examination — Scope and effect — Defence case put to complainant — Complainant denied — Whether trial court erred in holding defence not put — Whether failure to evaluate defence — Whether misdirection in law — Whether miscarriage of justice Evidence — Standard of proof — Reasonable doubt — Whether burden on prosecution discharged — Whether false or weak defence fatal to accused — Whether trial court misapplied test of inherent reasonableness Criminal Law — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 s 14(a) — Physical sexual assault — Whether complainant under 18 years — Whether age proven beyond reasonable doubt — Whether IC sufficient to prove age — Whether burden on prosecution discharged Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Sentence — Judicial discretion — Whether sentence within legal bounds — Whether Sessions Court imposed sentence with rational consideration of all relevant factors — Whether discretion exercised in unauthorised, extraneous or irrelevant manner — Whether appellate court should interfere. 1 Criminal Law — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 — s 14(a) — Physical sexual assault — Whether Sessions Judge erred in rejecting defence as afterthought — Whether line of defence was put during cross-examination — Whether failure to evaluate defence constituted material misdirection — Whether misdirection occasioned miscarriage of justice Evidence — Cross-examination — Scope and effect — Defence case put to complainant — Complainant denied — Whether trial court erred in holding defence not put — Whether failure to evaluate defence — Whether misdirection in law — Whether miscarriage of justice Evidence — Standard of proof — Reasonable doubt — Whether burden on prosecution discharged — Whether false or weak defence fatal to accused — Whether trial court misapplied test of inherent reasonableness Criminal Law — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 s 14(a) — Physical sexual assault — Whether complainant under 18 years — Whether age proven beyond reasonable doubt — Whether IC sufficient to prove age — Whether burden on prosecution discharged Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Sentence — Judicial discretion — Whether sentence within legal bounds — Whether Sessions Court imposed sentence with rational consideration of all relevant factors — Whether discretion exercised in unauthorised, extraneous or irrelevant manner — Whether appellate court should interfere 1 The appellant, a lawyer and partner of a firm, was convicted by the Sessions Court on two counts of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Penal Code involving monies received in the firm’s client account. The High Court found that the appellant had exclusive dominion over the account, acted dishonestly, and failed to disburse funds to the rightful parties. The four essential elements under How Chee Hong v PP [2020] 2 CLJ 863 were satisfied. Presumptions under Sections 409B and 24 supported findings of dishonest intent. The court dismissed the appeal and the affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Sessions Court. A stay of execution pending appeal was granted on existing bail terms due to the appellant’s serious medical conditions, financial hardship, and dependent children. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed. 1 CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs – Trafficking – Possession and control of cannabis found in shared room during police raid – Accused handed over box upon police caution – Shared access to room and no forensic link – Whether exclusive possession established – Whether presumption under s. 37(d) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applicable – Whether prima facie case established – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ss. 39B(1)(a), 37(d), 37(da) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial – Close of prosecution case – Standard for prima facie case – Accused's silence – Whether Court would convict on prosecution evidence alone – Duty of prosecution to exclude third-party involvement – Failure to investigate material suspect – Failure to establish element of possession – Whether adverse inference to be drawn – Criminal Procedure Code ss. 180(1), (2), (4); Evidence Act 1950 s. 114(g) 1 CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs – Trafficking and possession – Charge under s 39B(1)(a) DDA read with s 34 Penal Code – Whether custody and control established – Whether knowledge inferred from surrounding circumstances – Accused found inside enclosed lorry compartment in close proximity to open boxes containing methamphetamine – Defence relying on third-party “Che Mat” and alleged investigative gaps – Whether third-party access created reasonable doubt – Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) applicable – Absence of repacking tools, distribution indicators or movement for sale – Trafficking not proven beyond reasonable doubt – Possession (custody, control and knowledge) established – Whether conviction for lesser offence permissible – Application of ss 158 and 169(2) Criminal Procedure Code – Whether particulars of charge supported lesser offence – Substitution to offence under s 12(2) punishable under s 39A(2) DDA SENTENCING – Exceptionally large quantity (426.79 kg) – No direct trafficking activity proved – Range of sentence under s 39A(2) – Consideration of gravity of offence, proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitative objective – Accused aged 33–46 with prospect of reintegration into society. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah Berbahaya — Pengedaran Dadah — Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 — Kes Prima Facie — Seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah — Penilaian Maksimum Keterangan — Kredibiliti dan Kecukupan Kes Pendakwaan — Memanggil Pembelaan – Tertuduh disabitkan dengan kesalahan dibawah Pertuduhan – Sama ada terdapat keterangan dibawah seksyen 39B (2A) ADB yang membolehkan Mahkamah menggunakan budibicara menjatuhkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup. 1 Criminal law – murder – the evidence of an accomplice can be accepted to convict an accused for murder if it is corroborated in material particulars. Criminal law – murder- where the accused had acted in a way which exhibits viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life, and his acts are so grievous an affront to humanity and so abhorrent, the death penalty would be the only adequate sentence 1 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH — Membunuh- Kesalahan dibawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan- OKT mengaku bersalah - Pertuduhan Pilihan dibawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan – Pembunuhan Tanpa Niat Membunuh - Rayuan oleh pendakwaan terhadap hukuman- Budi Bicara Penghukuman — Faktor Mitigasi dan Aggravasi — Permulaan Hukuman — Kekangan Rayuan - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan memadai – Sama ada kepentingan awam dan keseriusan kesalahan telah diberi pertimbangan sewajarnya – Sama ada pertimbangan mengenai akuan bersalah perlu diambil kira - Sama ada hukuman penjara yang yang dijatuhkan terlalu rendah (inadequate) tanpa mengambil kira “totality sentencing” dan “Trend of sentencing”- Sama ada prinsip-prinsip hukuman diambil kira sepenuhnya dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Membunuh- Sama ada OKT mempunyai niat membunuh si mati- Niat ditafsir dari kecederaan dialami si mati- Sama ada elemen-elemen dibawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dibuktikan- Sama ada OKT berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap pertuduhan- Sama ada kematian telah berlaku- Sama ada kecederaan serius si mati akan menyebabkan kematian- Sama ada kecederaan pada si mati adalah disebabkan perbuatan OKT- Sama ada Perbuatan yang menyebabkan kematian adalah tergolong di bawah salah satu peruntukan di bawah seksyen 300 (a), (b), (c) atau (d) Kanun Keseksaan - OKT diarahkan membela diri untuk kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan bagi kesalahan homisid salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada pembunuhan – OKT telah mengaku salah di atas pertuduhan pindaan di bawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan memadai – Sama ada kepentingan awam dan keseriusan kesalahan telah diberi pertimbangan sewajarnya - Sama ada hukuman penjara yang yang dijatuhkan rendah tanpa mengambil kira “totality sentencing” dan “Trend of sentencing”- Sama ada prinsip-prinsip hukuman diambil kira sepenuhnya dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Membunuh- Kesalahan dibawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan- OKT mengaku bersalah - Pertuduhan Pilihan dibawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan – Rayuan oleh pendakwaan terhadap hukuman- Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan memadai – Sama ada kepentingan awam dan keseriusan kesalahan telah diberi pertimbangan sewajarnya – Sama ada pertimbangan mengenai akuan bersalah perlu diambil kira - Sama ada hukuman penjara yang yang dijatuhkan terlalu rendah (inadequate) tanpa mengambil kira “totality sentencing” dan “Trend of sentencing”- Sama ada prinsip-prinsip hukuman diambil kira sepenuhnya dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence – Mitigation – Offence under s. 26H Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 – Harbouring of three undocumented Indonesian migrants – Early plea of guilty – First-time offenders – No financial gain – action motivated by humanitarian grounds – Whether deterrent sentence necessary – Whether public interest must outweigh personal mitigating factors – Importance of balancing punishment with rehabilitation – Whether Court may impose reduced custodial term considering the absence of organised smuggling and need to reduce the burden on public funds – Whether deportation preferable to prolonged incarceration – Whether sentence must fit both crime and offender – Whether Court must exercise sentencing discretion judiciously – Whether one-year imprisonment fair and proportionate – Whether sentence adequately meets public interest, fairness, and restorative justice principles. 1 Civil Procedure - Civil appeal from Sessions Court - Appeal against liability and quantum by Defendant 1 - Cross-appeal by Plaintiff on quantum - Whether Defendant 1 liable for acts of Defendant 2 for disposing of waste on Plaintiff's land - Whether Defendants had committed trespass against the Plaintiff by disposing waste on his land - Whether trespass actionable per se without having to prove damages - Continuing trespass - Whether exemplary damages suitable in the circumstances - Whether SCJ erred in fact and in law in finding Defendant 1 liable for acts of Defendant 2 - Appeal by Defendant 1 dismissed - Appeal by Plaintiff allowed 1 Civil Procedure - Originating Summons - Federal Constitution - Malay Reservations Enactment - Plaintiffs contend that a Malay Reserve land was purchased in an auction by a Non-Malay company contrary to ss.7 and 19 of the MRE - Whether the Plaintiffs have locus standi to bring the action before the Court - Whether Malay Reserve Land may be held by a Non-Malay under the Enakmen Rizab Melayu Perak (EMR) F.M.S. Cap 142 - Whether the Pekeliling Ketua Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Persekutuan Bil. 16/2022 have force of law - Breach of natural justice - Audi alteram partem rule - Company not brought as a party to the suit - Application dismissed 1 Civil Procedure - Originating Summons - Order 92 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 - Application by beneficiaries of estate of deceased for distribution of compensation from land acquisition - Inordinate delay by administrator to take action - Whether the legal beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased are entitled when the estate's administration has not been completed and wound up - No proofs shown by Defendant to support assertion - Application allowed in part with costs to be borne y Defendant personally - No interest awarded on costs 1 Saman Pemula - Perkara 13(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Kanun Tanah Negara - Akta Harta Pusaka Kecil (Pembahagian) 1995 [Akta 98] - Hakmilik tidak boleh disangkal di bawah s.340 KTN - Permohonan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk membatalkan Pemberian Surat Kuasa Mentadbir di bawah Seksyen 13 Akta 98 - Permohonan untuk deklarasi - Sama ada pindahmilik lot-lot tanah Si Mati kepada ibu Plaintif-Plaintif adalah sah - Sama ada Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 1.4.2022 telah menafikan hak Plaintif-Plaintif di bawah Perkara 13(1) - - Sama ada prinsip res judicata terpakai - Terdapat kekhilafan yang dibuat semasa perbicaraan harta pusaka Si Mati - Permohonan ditolak dengan kos 1 Rogol gadis bawah umur. Ujian kelelakian adalah perlu. Jika tiada, adakah jujaskan kes pendakwaan jikan ada keterangan lain tunjukkan tertuduh mampu lakukan hunbungan seks. 1 Criminal Procedure - Penal Code s.457 - Appeal against sentence - Appellant pleaded guilty - Whether previous conviction record of Appellant should be considered in handing down sentence - Appeal dismissed 1 Criminal procedure - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Offence of cultivating cannabis under s.6B of DDA 1952 - Appellant caught in the backyard of his house after surveillance by the police - Police seized 3 cannabis plants - Whether admission by Appellant to his mother is admissible - Whether prosecution has excluded access to the premises - Whether Appellant has custody or control and knowledge - Whether there was prima face case - Whether presumption under s.6B(4) applied - Evidential burden on the Appellant whether on raising a reasonable doubt or on a balance of probabilities - Appeal against conviction dismissed - Appeal against sentence dismissed 1 Criminal procedure - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Charged with trafficking - Accused pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of possession - Motorcycle seized in the commission of the offence - Ordered to be forfeited to the Government of Malaysia - Principles of sentencing - Spent conviction - Forfeiture of property 1 Pertuduhan Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Pindaan pertuduhan ke Seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama. Tertuduh mengaku salah selepas pertuduhan pilihan diberikan. Berat dadah hanya 223.03 gram cannabis. Hukuman penjara 10 tahun dari tarikh tangkap tanpa sebatan. Samada memadai mengambilkira tertuduh berusia lebih 50 tahun dan tidak boleh dikenakan hukuman sebat. Seksyen 289(c) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 1 Pertuduhan seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dipinda ke dua pertuduhan pilihan di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama. Hukuman 12 tahun dan 10 tahun penjara dan 10 sebat bagi setiap pertuduhan. Samada tertuduh-tertuduh layak dipertimbangkan hukuman rendah setelah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan pilihan. Tertuduh-tertuduh mengaku salah selepas pembelaan dipanggil. 1 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Perbicaraan Jenayah - Pertuduhan s.302 Kanun Keseksaan - Tertuduh dituduh membunuh simati semasa mereka menjalani tahana reman di penjara - Sama ada semua elemen kesalahan membunuh dibuktikan di tahap kes prima facie - Sebab kematian kecederaan parah paru-paru adalah memadai pada lazimnya untuk menyebabkan kematian - Pembelaan memasukkan pernyataan di bawah s. 112 KTJ untuk menyokong pembelaannya bahawa terdapat ramai tahanan lain yang turut mencederakan simati termasuk saksi pendakwaan - Tertuduh menafikan mendatangkan bencana tubuh dengan niat untuk menyebabkan kematian - Tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah bahawa terdapat orang lain yang terlibat sama dalam kejadian mencederakan simati - Pertuduhan dipinda ke s.304(b) Kanun Keseksaan - Tertuduh didapati bersalah dan disabitkan dan dijatuhi hukuman 7 tahun penjara 1 Criminal Procedure - S.26A ATIPSOM 2007 - Smuggling of Migrants - s.34 Penal Code - S.3 ATIPSOM 2007 - Movement of 10 migrants from Tok Bali, Kelantan to Pantai Remis, Perak during MCO - Permit to cross state border given - No supporting letter from employer - Whether passports still valid - One other accused could not be located - DNAA - Whether Accused had knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe that the migrants were illegal migrants - Whether common intention has been proved - Defence called - Accused raised a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case - Acquitted and discharged 1 Compulsory acquisition of sub lots of land - compensation agreed but not paid after Form H - whether withdrawal of compulsory acquisition and simultaneous resumption amenable to judicial review - whether unconstitutional and against legitimate expectation - no actual or formal possession. 1 Appeal against the decision of the High Court in dismissing the Applicant's application for judicial review against the decision of the Sendayan Air Force Court Martial dated 22 September 2021 which found the Applicant guilty of the charge of contravening Standing Order under section 51 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 - Whether the 1st Respondent had jurisdiction to convene the Court Martial -Whether the 2nd Respondent had wrongfully admitted the Standing Order during the Court Martial proceeding - Whether the Applicant had rightly submitted his petition to the Confirming Officer - Appeal allowed - case be remitted for a retrial before a reconstituted Court Martial. 1 Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA) – Land Reference – Compulsory acquisition – Compensation amount dispute - Section 49(1) LAA - 1 Judicial review; Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012; interim custody order; committal proceeding at Selangor Syariah High Court, Syariah Court Civil Procedure (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, Syariah Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003; Federal Constitution; jurisdiction and power of Selangor State Legislature to enact laws enabling Selangor Syariah Courts to commence contempt proceedings. 1 Fundamental liberties – Freedom of speech and expression – Section 233 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) – Impugned words “offensive” and “annoy” (“Impugned Words”) - Whether restriction pursues a legitimate aim under Art. 10(2)(a) Federal Constitution (“FC”) read with Art. 8 Federal Constitution. 1 Whether Impugned Words constitute permissible restriction under Art. 10(2)(a) FC on grounds of public order - Whether restriction created by impugned words proportionate to a legitimate aim – Application of proportionality doctrine – Arts. 10(2)(a) and 8 FC -Whether criminalisation of offensive communications with intent to annoy amounts to a prohibition rather than a restriction. 1 Whether criminalisation of “offensive” communications with intent to “annoy” consistent with Art. 10(1)(a) FC – Whether restriction valid under Art. 10(2)(a) FC – Whether disproportionate to any legitimate aim – Application of proportionality test – Distinction between “law and order” and “public order” – Articles 8 & 10 FC 1 Communications made via social media – Facebook post regarding Covid-19 conditions in detention centre – Whether offence under s. 233(1) CMA – Whether truth of statement is a defence – Absence of statutory defence for “offensive” and “annoying” speech – Whether provision amounts to prohibition of free speech – DNAA and locus standi to challenge law - Whether courts empowered to strike down unconstitutional legislation – Doctrine of proportionality - Whether restriction under s. 233(1) CMA amounted to arbitrary and excessive exercise of legislative power. 1 Whether the Impugned Words in s.233 CMA are consistent with Malaysia’s obligations under International Law. 1 Appeal against the Learned High Court Judge’s (“Learned Judge”) decision in affirming the Special Commissioner of Income Tax’s (“SCIT”) decision that the loan debts which were waived during the relevant/subject Year of Assessment shall be treated as taxable income despite the admitted and undisputed fact that the taxpayer already had been fully taxed on the loan amount (by not deducting the loan debt as a deductible operating expense/liability and instead treating the loan as a gross income) during the preceding Year of Assessment (“YA”) before the loan debt was eventually waived. 1 Judicial Review – Income Tax - Tax Release – Deductible Interest - Deduct the loan as operating expense / liability outright or Initially treat the loan disbursement as an income (no deduction) - Interpretation and the true effects of Section 30(4) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (“ITA”) - Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to find that Section 30(4) of the ITA irrelevant and inapplicable - Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to apply the lex generalis in Section 4 and Section 22 of the ITA in the case for waiver of debt; Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to find that the Revenue was entitled to impose a 2nd Tax Collection against the Waived Debt during (Y) despite having collected against the loan sum during (X); and Whether or not the categorisation of the loan debt (as CAPEX or OPEX) in the specific circumstance of this case would carry any material impact against the appropriate tax treatment. 1 Customs Act 1967 (Act 235) - Section 65 of the Customs Act 1967 - Originating Summons - a duty-free shop - goods and a lorry were seized during the inspection - claiming the return of the goods seized - failure to release the seized goods - consent to prosecute had been obtained - temporarily released/returned the lorry - the prosecution must be commenced within 30 days - date of notice of seizure of the goods - either the goods to be released or to refer the matter to a magistrate 1 -land reference proceeding -market value -building for commercial purposes -building for residential purposes -category of land use -issue estoppel and/or res judicata -comparable transactions -issue of zoning -reasonable explanation and justification 1 Compensation — Land reference — Intervention — Application by Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) as paymaster to intervene in land reference proceedings initiated by landowner — Whether paymaster has legal standing to participate without filing Form N — Whether paymaster is a "person interested" under Section 37 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 — Right of paymaster to safeguard interests against claims for increased compensation — Impact of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. Intervention — Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 — Application to be added as a party in land reference proceedings — Whether filing of Form N is the sole procedural mode for participation — Applicability of the Rules of Court where the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is silent — Proper mechanism for an interested party who has accepted the Land Administrator's award to participate in proceedings initiated by another party. Stare decisis — Conflicting decisions of the Federal Court — Whether to follow Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd [2018] or Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2022] — Principle that the later decision of the apex court prevails over the earlier decision — Duty of the High Court to follow the latest established legal propositions. Land Administrator's award — Nature of land reference proceedings — Whether the Land Administrator "defends" the award — Role of the Land Administrator as a provider of justification rather than a traditional defendant — Right of participation for parties whose financial interests are affected by the reference. "Person interested" — "Paymaster" — "Form N" — "Land reference" — Meaning and application under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. 1 Right to property – Article 13 (1) Federal Constitution – Deprivation of land by forfeiture – Quasi-criminal nature – Strict compliance with constitutional safeguards - Wednesbury reasonableness – Forfeiture of land following admitted mistake by Land Office – Concealment of contradictory reports – Whether decision was reasonable - National Land Code 1965 ss. 97, 100, 130, 133, 380 – Service of Form 6A Notice on wrong entity – Annulment petition – Whether filed out of time - Registrar’s statutory duty to correct errors - Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Compulsory acquisition for public purposes – Whether forfeiture was an unlawful backdoor method – Whether it contravenes the National Land Code, Land Acquisition Act, Federal Constitution 1 Section 69(1) CJA - s 11 of the Civil Law Act 1956 - Form 14A - Renunciation Deed - Undivided Share - Transfer Land - Collector of Stamp Duties - adjudication of stamp duty under s 36(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 1 Mustapha Kamil bin Abdullah V Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam & Anor: 1 The Plaintiff complained that the Defendanrts breached their promise to appoint him on a permanent post of W48 -Was there a valid offer of permanent appointment with the 2nd Defendant. 1 Detention — Arrest and remand — Appellant placed under close arrest pending Court Martial — Whether detention for 114 days was lawful — Whether arrest was for investigation or for purpose of prosecution — Interpretation of Section 96(3) and Section 94(2) of the Armed Forces Act 1972 — Whether detention was mala fide or without reasonable justification — Effect of appellant’s discharge from service on pending charges. False imprisonment — Claim for damages — Detention of a military officer pending trial by Court Martial — Whether detention under close arrest must only commence after the trial has started — Whether failure to provide a "delay report" every eight days invalidated the detention — Distinction between remand pending investigation and remand pending trial. Armed Forces Act 1972 — Section 96(3) — Meaning of "remanded for trial by court-martial" — Whether mandatory once investigation is complete and charges are referred to Court Martial — Section 94(2) — Requirement of a special report for delay — Whether applicable to detention pending trial or limited to the investigation stage. "Remanded for trial" — "Close arrest" — "Delay report" — Meaning under the Armed Forces Act 1972 and Armed Forces (Rules of Procedure) Regulations. 1 Legal profession – Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“DB”) Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 - Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the absence of the Appellant’s personal culpability in the allegation of misconduct – Whether HCJ misdirected herself in applying section 12 of the Partnership Act 1961 instead 1 Legal profession – Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 – Appellant not allowed to call witness at DC proceedings - Whether there was failure by HCJ in addressing issue of breach of natural justice during the hearing before the DC 1 Legal profession – Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 – Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof at DC proceedings. 1 res judicata - breached the rule of natural justice - 2ND SET ASIDE THE FINAL AWARD - section 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005 - section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 - setting aside Application against an arbitral award can only enquire into the decision-making process of the arbitrator and not the decision in and of itself - section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 - Res ipsa of a ‘jurisdictional challenge’ - right to be heard in limine - term “public policy” within section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act 2005 - principle of estoppel per rem judicatam (or res judicata) - estoppel 1 Contempt Proceeding - Appeal by the Petitioner (the Husband) against the decision of the Learned Judge dated 18 August 2023 dismissing his application (Enclosure 51) to commit the Respondent (the Wife) to prison for being in contempt of the Revised Consent Order of the High Court dated 30 May 2019 in regard to his entitlement to be given access to the child of the marriage - right to have holiday access 1 Interlocutory application - Mandatory injunction - When a respondent is ordered to deposit a sum of money by a certain time and there is non-compliance of that order leading to a committal proceedings, whether the plaintiff can then apply pursuant to Order 45 Rule 6 to set a new time for the respondent to comply with that injunction order - Whether the court has power under Order 45 Rule 6 to fix an additional date for performance - Whether the court may set a new time for performance under its inherent power 1 Appeal against the High Court’s decision dated 15 May 2023 in allowing the Defendants’ striking out application per Encl. 9 pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. However, the application was only taken up as a striking out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) pursuant to which the Court may strike out any Writ or pleading on the ground that “it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be”. And pursuant to Order 18 rule 2 - Questions as to whether, by reason of s.31 of the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (“the SOCSO Act”), an employee (or ex-employee) who sustained an employment injury or contracted a disease or medical condition due to his working environment, is precluded or statutorily barred from suing his employer for special damages, general damages, exemplary damages and aggravated damages - the appeal in fact turned solely on a procedural issue, rather than the substantive law (s.31 of the SOCSO Act). - also whether the Court could strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim as being time-barred under s.6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953, when that issue was only raised in the Defence. - Allowing the Appeal with costs of RM15,000.00 1 Issue (i) Undue Preference (Section 528 CA 2016) – High Court wrongly applied s.528 CA 2016 – Claim still void under s.293 CA 1965 (Board Resolution = undue preference) – Resolution passed 2 months before winding-up. Issue (ii) Restrictive Clauses in Deeds – Clauses limit claims to 1st respondent only – No right of claim against 2nd respondent – Resolution sought property transfer, not monetary payment – outside deed scope – Resolution held inoperative and unenforceable. Issue (iii) Privity of Contract – No valid debt assignment as required by s.4(3) Civil Law Act 1956 – No written, signed assignment by Prizegard – Resolution was self-serving – not enforceable. Issue (iv) Limitation, Estoppel & Admission – High Court did not decide, factual disputes require oral evidence – Appellant claimed debt was acknowledged, resetting limitation – Issue not addressed as claim failed on other grounds. Conclusion – High Court findings not plainly wrong – Appeal dismissed – Costs of RM30,000.00 subject to allocatur. 1 Design and development of the app Design & Development Of Sky Chat, Wallet & Payment Gateway with Cloud Base Project-Neurogine's access as the mobile application developer to Google Play Store- additional change requests made by the iNetSOHO team- signing off by iNetSOHO after the User Acceptance Test and the Functional Test- Skyworld's claim that the app was not functioning was based on the mere oral assertion of its witnesses- parties had adopted a flexible approach with regard to the timeline for completion- denied user access to Google Play Store by iNetSOHO- failure to complete the Project particularly the e-wallet and Red Packet module was not due to any breach on Neurogine’s part but was consequent upon iNetSOHO's actions in denying access to Google Play Store due to payment issues- change made by Skyworld for additional services- payment of RM 490,000.00 was towards the second quotation.- Skyworld had knowledge of the second quotation. 1 Dispute between Appellant/developer and the Joint Management Body and office bearers/Respondents - denial of access by the Respondents - Appellant unable to complete utility works for Tower B timeously - payment of LAD - loss of sales and rental income - torts of unlawful conspiracy and unlawful interference with business - whether there was a breach of statutory duties by the JMB under the Strata Management Act 2013 - whether the Appellant's action was defeated by the principle of res judicata - whether loss and damage proved - nominal damages. 1 343(b) of the National Land Code (revised 2020) - expenses related to the property - i) the Partial Redemption Sum and the Renovation Costs; ii) the Necessary Sale and Purchase Expenses; and iii) the expenses related to the House (assessment and quit rents, excluding utilities) - Appellate Court Intervention - Possession of the said property from the date of vacant possession until the date of Originating Summons - Appellant’s claim for rental sum of the property from respondent 1 The Court of Appeal ruled that vacant possession is complete upon civil works, not utility connections, which purchasers must secure themselves. Developers are not liable for such delays, and liquidated damages under section 75 Contracts Act require proof of loss. The High Court’s decision was affirmed. 1 Breach of Contract - claim for excess payment of parking rental - whether correct method of calculation used - Claim for loss of profit due to parking bays without license - Duty to obtain certificate of fitness under Factories and Machineries Act 1967 - Whether duty owner of building or company operating parking space - Section 3, Section 19, Section 21, Section 40(3), Section 50 Factories and Machineries Act 1967 - Regulation 10 of the Factories and Machinery (Notification, Certification of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970. 1 Breach of Contract - claim for excess payment of parking rental - whether correct method of calculation used - Claim for loss of profit due to parking bays without license - Duty to obtain certificate of fitness under Factories and Machineries Act 1967 - Whether duty owner of building or company operating parking space - Section 3, Section 19, Section 21, Section 40(3), Section 50 Factories and Machineries Act 1967 -Regulation 10 of the Factories and Machinery (Notification, Certification of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970. 1 Law of Evidence – Documentary evidence v Oral evidence – Dispute between parties over lands purchased more 50 years ago – Whether lands were to be divided equally between them – Whether there was insufficient judicial appreciation of the documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff – Whether undue weight had been placed on oral testimony of the Defendants in light of contemporaneous documents – Whether there was a misdirection in the application of the burden and standard of proof on the Parties. 1 Medical Negligence - Damages for pain and suffering for patient who suffered pain for 24 hours - No proof of loss of dependency - Aggravated Damages - Pleadings whether Estate can sue for aggravated damages - Events occurring after the death of the deceased. 1 Whether the SPA and Tenancy Agreement are sham transactions masking an illegal moneylending transaction - whether by virtue of the 2010 suit, the Appellants are barred by res judicata and further and/or alternatively, the earlier suit, based on non-payment of the SPA proceeds by their own solicitors, undermined their 2014 suit premised on an allegedly illegal transaction under the Moneylenders Act 1951 and the Contracts Act 1950 - whether the 5th Appellant’s appeal is incompetent on account of her status as an undischarged bankrupt. 1 Appeal against decision of High Court - claim for damages premised on breach of fiduciary duties - fraudulent claims for personal gain - abuse of powers as directors - whether Defendants owed and breached their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff - whether Defendants acted within scope of powers granted pursuant to Memorandum and Articles of Association - strict fiduciary principle of universal application - prohibits personal interest conflicts - seriousness of the breaches and misappropriation of the funds and assets of the Plaintiff 1 This is an appeal concerning a dispute over the rates of maintenance charges imposed on car parks in a mixed commercial development project known as PD1 Complex. The High Court decided in favour of the Respondent, but the Appellant appealed, contending the charges were unfair and sought different rates based on usage. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Appellant's computation arbitrary and a collateral attempt to redress share unit inequities. The court upheld the High Court's decision, and the Appellant must pay RM 40,000 to the Respondent. 1 Appeal – Issues of whether the appellant was a beneficiary of shares of a company and whether the appellant was in breach of a Trust Deed in regard to the mode of payment towards the acquisition of the said shares which were registered in the name of the respondent - whether the appellant was entitled to enjoy the benefit of the dividends to the said shares immediately despite not having paid the full amount of his portion of the shared acquisition costs to the respondent. 1 Issue of the testator’s knowledge and approval of the terms of a will - whether there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the impugned will which could move the court not to allow the impugned will to be probated if those suspicious circumstances were not dispelled or removed through affirmative proof - whether the testator was subject to undue influence in signing and making the impugned will. 1 Breach of Trust Counter Claim Time Barred Evidential Burden Declatory Order Legal Basis Afterthought Unauthorised Payments Declaration On a balance of Probabilities Advancing Lending Flimsy Evidence 1 Whether an unsigned 3rd draft SPA was a concluded and binding contract, notwithstanding that there were 4th and 5th drafts - subject property sold in the midst of trial - whether corporate veil of the defendant company can be lifted - whether general and exemplary damages can be imposed against the sole director personally. 1 Contract – Developer’s Interest Bearing Scheme (DIBS) – Construction period – Interpretation of “construction period” – Whether limited to 48-month Contract Period or extended until delivery of vacant possession (VP) – Ambiguity in drafting – Contra proferentem rule – Contemporaneous documentary evidence – End financing agreements – Subsequent conduct of parties – Estoppel – Equitable principles – Refund of alleged overpaid interests – Coercion and unequal bargaining power – Liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) distinct from DIBS obligations – Business common sense approach 1 The appeal concerned liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD) for late delivery of commercial offices. The High Court partly allowed the respondents’ claims, invalidating settlement letters and ordering LAD and a refund. The Court of Appeal held the SPA was a commercial contract outside the Housing Development Act, and LAD must follow its terms. Settlement agreements were valid, and breach of instalments did not void them. The High Court erred on the burden of proof for overpayment; lacking evidence, the refund was set aside. The appeal was allowed in part, varying the High Court’s orders. 1 Whether sale and purchase of land transactions were sham transactions- Whether illegal moneylending transactions were disguised as genuine sale and purchase transactions - Whether it is appropriate for the court to scrutinise the documents and transactions when there is an allegation of illegal money lending activities - Whether the doctrine of in pari delicto and ex turpi causa non oritur action applicable-Whether the trail court was plainly wrong. 1 Interpleader application in execution proceedings; order 17 rule 3(1) of the Rule of Courts; third party claim on motor vehicles seized by judgment creditor; whether third party had title to the vehicles; whether payment conclusively proved ownership; the effect of contravention of MITI's policy on Approved Permits; illegality on account of being contrary to public policy; section 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950 1 Employment law - Dismissal - Employees suspended - Reference made to Industrial Court - Subsequent claims for unpaid wages made to Labour Office - Whether Labour Office had jurisdiction to decide on wage claim despite earlier reference to Industrial Court - Whether jurisdiction of Labour Office ousted - Whether High Court Judge had erred in interpreting section 69A of the Employment Act 1 seksyen 26A Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 - pertimbangan faktor kepentingan awam - keseriusan kesalahan – factor mitigasi - hukuman pemenjaraan bukanlah sesuatu yang boleh disifatkan sebagai manifestly excessive 1 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.- Kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah yang dirampas - Jagaan atau kawalan dan kelakuan semasa tangkapan adalah “relevant” - Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Seksyen 9 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Saksi kredibel dan boleh dipercayai – Tiada kegagalan di pihak polis untuk menyiasat penama-penama lain - Kegagalan memanggil saksi lain tidak menyebabkan inferens yang menentang mengikut seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai terhadap pendakwaan - Keterangan yang tidak boleh diterima masuk “inadmissible evidence” - Seksyen 40 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 memberi perlindungan kepada pemberi maklumat - Keterangan yang tidak relevan dan bersifat dengar cakap - Kegagalan mematahkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - di atas imbangan kebarangkalian 1 Undang-undang jenayah — s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 — Mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine (152.5 gram) — Perayu disabitkan dan dijatuhi hukuman penjara seumur hidup dari tarikh tangkapan serta lima belas sebatan — Milikan dan pengetahuan — Dadah dijumpai dalam beg silang yang dipakai Perayu — Penafian Perayu ditolak — Kegagalan pembelaan meletakkan kes di peringkat pendakwaan menjejaskan kredibiliti Perayu — Kad pengenalan Perayu dijumpai dalam beg silang — Inferens pengetahuan terhadap dadah — Tuduhan penganiayaan polis — Tiada keterangan boleh dipercayai — Ditolak — Pemilikan motosikal — Tidak relevan — Isu sebenar adalah kawalan dan milikan dadah — s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak terpakai — Keputusan — Tiada kekhilafan undang-undang atau fakta — Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman ditolak — Hukuman dikekalkan. 1 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama - anggapan pemilikan dan pengetahuan di bawah seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 di atas imbangan kebarangkalian dibaca bersama seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 untuk definisi pengedaran - anggapan yang menentang di bawah sekyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - keterangan dokumentar seperti DNA, cap jari, analisis telefon bimbit, dan rakaman CCTV - nilai sokongan yang kecil - kebolehterimaan keterangan saksi – pembelaan bersifat penafian dan rekaan semata-mata dan tidak boleh dipercayai - 'Alcontra Notice' 1 Kesalahan dibawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama - Isu-isu: (A) Sama Ada Tertuduh Mempunyai Jagaan Dan Kawalan Terhadap Dadah Yang Dirampas - (B) Sama Ada Tertuduh Mempunyai Pengetahuan Terhadap Dadah Yang Dirampas - (C) Sama Ada Tertuduh Telah Mengedar Dadah Tersebut - (D) Ketiadaan Keterangan CCTV Di Tempat Kejadian Atau Kesan Cap Jari Tertuduh Pada Ekshibit P8 Tersebut - Keterangan forensik seperti CCTV atau kesan cap jari hanya mempunyai nilai sokongan yang kecil - Keterangan tertuduh tidak kredibel, suatu pemikiran terkemudian dan penafian semata-mata - keterangan saksi pembelaan tidak dapat menyokong pembelaan tertuduh serta tidak konsisten dengan keterangan tertuduh - pembelaan bersifat simple denial - pihak pembelaan telah gagal untuk mematahkan anggapan pengetahuan di bawah seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - dadah yang dirampas daripada milikan tertuduh adalah untuk tujuan pengedaran 1 Section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act - Drug trafficking - Whether the trial judge had confused the facts of the present case with a different unrelated case - Whether there was misdirection and error on the trial judge's finding of material facts. 1 Appeal against conviction and sentence – Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping – Whether the flagrant incompetence of the trial counsel resulted in a breach of the Appellant fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial - Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding the Appellant in mens rea and presumed possession under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding simultaneous actual and presumed trafficking under sections 2 and 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. 1 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah - rantaian keterangan barang kes dadah - kewujudan kelompangan dan keraguan tentang identiti barang-barang kes - ketiadaan cabaran atau soalan dikemukakan kepada saksi - rakaman CCTV - inferens menentang mengikut seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - keterangan dokumentar melalui CCTV bersifat keterangan sokongan sahaja - nilai sokongan yang kecil - keterangan-keterangan lain yang melimpah ruah - keterangan CCTV atau cap jari relevan dan significant didalam keadaan dimana identiti menjadi isu pertikaian - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi – keberadaan di tempat kejadian - pihak pembelaan telah gagal untuk mematahkan anggapan yang berbangkit di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 1 Criminal Procedure — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Accused charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - punishable under s 39B (2) of the Act - The charge was reduced to s 39A(2) of the Act - The Accused was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and 10 strokes of rotan — Whether defence sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — the circumstances of the case support a charge of possession rather than trafficking 1 Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dibaca bersama Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan – Agent Provocatuer – Ketiadaan keterangan forensik seperti rakaman CCTV, cap jari atau DNA tidak mencacatkan kes pendakwaan – Pemakaian anggapan mengedar menurut Seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 –tertuduh cuba melarikan diri apabila diserbu oleh pihak polis 1 s 39B(1)(a) dan boleh dihukum menurut s 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB 1952)-perayu telah didapati bersalah oleh YA HMT-perayu dijatuhi hukuman pemenjaraan seumur hidup dari tarikh ditangkapdan 12 sebatan rotan –perayu merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan- Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan sabitan yang diputuskan YA HMT tidak selamat- sabitan dan hukuman yang diputuskan oleh YA HMT diketepikan - OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan. Isu pemilikan barang kes- isu kredibiliti SP5- cabaran terhadap kredibiliti SP5 di peringkat kes pendakwaan- tiada analisis YA HMT terhadap kredibiliti SP5 - keterangan SP5 juga tidak konsisten- isu dapatan YA HMT di akhir kes pendakwaan- nota keterangan YA HMT tidak selari dengan apa yang ditulis oleh YA HMT di dalam alasan penghakiman beliau- isu elemen pengedaran dadah – dalam Alasan Penghakiman, YA HMT mendapati bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah membuktikan elemen pengedaran dadah berbahaya menurut s 2 ADB 1952- bercanggah dengan dapatan YA HMT sebelumnya yang mendapati bahawa barang kes telah diserahkan sendiri oleh OKT setelah ditanya SP5- isu dipanggil membela diri dan keterangan pembelaan. 1 Undang- Undang Jenayah – Rayuan – Sabitan dan hukuman di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(c) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Hukuman di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan – Sama ada wujud niat bersama antara tertuduh- tertuduh untuk memproses dadah berbahaya – Pemilikan dan kawalan – Sama ada keterangan bahawa OKT 1 mempunyai alat kawalan jauh pintu pagar utama dan kunci terjumlah kepada bukti milikan dan kawalan terhadap premis – OKT 1 dilepaskan dan dibebaskan – Kegagalan hakim bicara menilai pembelaan OKT 2 hingga OKT 5 – Sama ada sabitan terhadap OKT 2- hingga OKT 5 adalah selamat – Sabitan dan hukuman di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(c) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 diketepikan dan digantikan – Sabitan terhadap OKT 2 hingga OKT 5 diganti kepada Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Hukuman dijatuhkan di bawah Seksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dibaca bersama Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. 1 Section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Drug trafficking charge - Drugs found in a residential house - The Appellant was arrested at the house together with six other persons - Only the Appellant was charged - The other arrestees were not called as prosecution witness nor were they offered to the defence at the end of prosecution's stage - Whether failure of prosecution to offer the other arrestees as witnesses to the defence had offended the principle of fair trial against the Appellant - The Court finds the Appellant's conviction and sentence is not safe - Appeal is allowed. 1 Section 39B(1)(a) DDA - finding by trial Judge of direct/mens rea knowledge and presumed knowledge- whether there was an invocation of double presumptions - defence of innocent carrier - omission to consider certain strands of evidence by trial Judge 1 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – milikan (possession) atau kawalan (custody) dan pengetahuan (knowledge) – anggapan pengedaran di bawah Seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952 –pembelaan Perayu bukanlah satu penafian kosong (bare denial) dan fikiran terkemudian (afterthought) – naratif pembelaan bagi Perayu dan Tertuduh Kedua adalah sama – Perayu disabitkan manakala Tertuduh Kedua dilepaskan dan dibebaskan – Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi gagal menjelaskan alasan Tertuduh Kedua dibebaskan dan mensabitkan Perayu sedangkan naratif kes pembelaan adalah sama bagi kedua-dua Tetuduh – Wujud keadaan khas untuk Mahkamah Atasan campur tangan 1 Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada terdapat keraguan bahawa Perayu telah menetak Mangsa dan telah berniat menyebabkan bencana tubuh yang telah menyebabkan kematian Mangsa - Kredibiliti dan kebolehpercayaan keterangan SP11 - Adakah SP11 merupakan seorang rakan jenayah atau pelaku jenayah bersama dengan Perayu – Pembelaan mabuk keterlaluan atau intoxication. 1 Appeal against conviction and sentence – Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case – Whether custody, control and possession were proven – Whether there was a failure to administer the caution as required under section 37B(1)(b) DDA 1952 – Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in rejecting the evidence of defence witnesses 1 Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - rayuan terhadap hukuman - peruntukan seksyen 34 Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 (Akta 846) – budi bicara Mahkamah memberikan hukuman alternatif - kepentingan awam - mengaku salah satu faktor mitigasi - pesalah pertama - tiada rekod kesalahan lampau - keberatan hukuman satu faktor deteren kepada masyarakat 1 Section 302 of the Penal Code – appeal on sentence – Appellant had pleaded guilty before the High Court - Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 (Act 846) – Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence 1 Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal - Section 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether there is a prima facie case of error? - The trial judge had acted on the available evidence - Version of events to be inherently probable – No prima facie case of error that warrants this Court to intervene, interfere or reverse the concurrent finding of facts - Liability issue - Plaintiff failed to satisfy the legal threshold for the granting of leave 1 Seksyen 405 Kanun Keseksaan - Criminal breach of trust - Seksyen 408 Kanun Keseksaan - Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant - Seksyen 409B Kanun Keseksaan – Presumption - pekerja melaksanakan tugas diamanahkan atau menerima gaji atau imbuhan dari akaun majikannya - menyelewangkan harta majikan - kesalahan pecah amanah jenayah - memohon kebenaran untuk perayu meletak jawatan - pelantikan wakalah - dokumen kontrak - seksyen 91 dan 92 Akta Keterangan 1950 - kebolehterimaan keterangan dan kredibilitinya amat diragui – tiada desakan, salah faham atau kekeliruan - wang yang diterima bukanlah suatu amanah yang dipegang bagi pihak firma - tidak wujud elemen “amanah” - elemen “entrustment” atau “dominion over the property” telah gagal dibuktikan - berjaya mematahkan anggapan kecurangan (dishonesty) mengikut seksyen 409B Kanun Keseksaan 1 Seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan – Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman penjara 12 tahun serta 5 sebatan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen yang dikekalkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi. 1 Isu 1 - Pertuduhan didakwa cacat – Tarikh dalam pertuduhan tidak tepat, menjejaskan pembelaan (rujukan Seksyen 422 KTJ) – Mahkamah memutuskan tarikh/masa tidak material jika tiada kekeliruan atau prejudis (rujukan Seksyen 156 KTJ). 1 Isu 2 – Tiada penetrasi dan hanya ada kesan koyakan lama menyebabkan timbul keraguan – Mahkamah memutuskan koyakan baharu tidak semestinya wujud jika sudah ada koyakan lama. Persetubuhan boleh berlaku tanpa koyakan/luka/air mani. 1 Isu 3 - Keterangan SP4 (mangsa) tidak konsisten kerana wujud percanggahan tarikh dan masa daftar keluar hotel – Mahkamah memutuskan percanggahan tidak material, mangsa konsisten dalam intipati dan dianggap “unusually convincing” oleh Hakim bicara. 1 Hukuman – Penjara 12 tahun & 5 sebatan dikekalkan - Mahkamah rayuan tidak ganggu kerana hukuman tidak terlalu melampau dan telah ambil kira faktor relevan. 1 Kesimpulan - Sabitan selamat. Hukuman adalah berpatutan - Rayuan ditolak. Wang jaminan dipulangkan kepada penjamin. 1 RAYUAN SIVIL: Rayuan oleh pemohon terhadap keputusan Majistret yang menolak permohonan nafkah terhadap responden – Pemohon dan responden merupakan pasangan suami isteri melalui perkahwinan yang didaftarkan di Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara di daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan melalui No. Pendaftaran KC05 0662221 pada 15.03.2022 – Pemohon ialah pemastautin tetap di Malaysia manakala responden warganegara Kanada dan pemegang visa Malaysia My Second Home – Sejak bulan Jun 2024, pemohon dan responden telah hidup berasingan – Pemohon meninggalkan rumah perkahwinan dan defendan enggan memberikan nafkah yang mencukupi kepada pemohon – Sama ada responden mempunyai kewajipan memberi nafkah kepada pemohon – Sama ada plaintif tidak berupaya untuk menyara kehidupan sendiri – Sama ada terdapat alasan munasabah bagi menghalang pemberian nafkah oleh responden kepada pemohon – Sama ada responden mempunyai keupayaan kewangan untuk memberi nafkah kepada pemohon – Sama ada Majistret telah khilaf nyata dalam menolak tuntutan nafkah pemohon kerana gagal mengemukakan bukti perbelanjaan sebenar – Sama ada jumlah nafkah yang dituntut oleh pemohon adalah munasabah – Seksyen 3 Akta Perempuan Bersuami dan Anak-anak (Nafkah) 1950. 1 Interlocutory appeal – Civil Procedure – Summary judgment – Loan agreement – Recovery of loan sum – Whether there were triable issues – Whether the loan was disbursed – Whether action filed within time limitation – Accrual of cause of action – Whether the calculation interest is correct – Appeal dismissed – Magistrate’s decision affirmed – Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Kebenaran pelanjutan tempoh masa memfailkan bagi kali kedua Rekod Rayuan di luar masa – Kekhilafan undang-undang oleh peguam cara perayu tidak dijelaskan – Peguam cara tidak memfailkan rekod rayuan dalam masa kerana menunggu perintah bermeterai – A.55 k2, 3 dan 4, A3 k5 dan A.1A Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 This appeal arises from the decision of the Magistrates Court on both liability and quantum, challenged by the Appellants/Defendants. The Respondent/Plaintiff, in turn, has filed a cross-appeal, contesting the quantum awarded. 1 At first glance, the monetary value of the dispute may seem modest, but the legal questions it presents are far from trivial. 1 These questions, though arising from a seemingly routine dispute, bear wider implications for personal injury litigation and the evidentiary thresholds required in such claims. 1 Three pivotal issues emerge for determination in this appeal: 1. Appealability – Is the decision of the Magistrates Court subject to appeal? 2. Liability – Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff has established negligence on a balance of probabilities. 3. Proof of Special Damages – Can special damages be established solely through documentary evidence? 1 These issues, though specific to the present case, carry significance beyond it, shaping how similar claims may be adjudicated in the future. 1 Appeal against Magistrate’s Court decision after a full trial – Respondent carried out waterproofing works for the appellant – Respondent claims balance unpaid fees for the waterproofing works – Appellant counterclaims for the costs incurred in appointing a new contractor to resolve the leakage problem – Whether the respondent made representations to the appellant on its expertise and skill to resolve the leakage problem – Whether the appellant and the respondent made a site visit prior to the appointment of the respondent – Whether the respondent had resolved the leakage problem – Whether the waterproofing works were completed satisfactorily – Whether the appellant had given notice to the respondent in relation to the non-completion of the waterproofing works and that the leakage problem persisted. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG TORT: Kemalangan jalan raya – Rayuan mengenai isu liabiliti dan kuantum – Dapatan Mahkamah Rendah diakaskan pada peringkat rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi − Agihan liabiliti ialah 60:40 – Sama ada dapatan dan keputusan Mahkamah Rendah adalah khilaf – Sama ada Responden/plaintif cuai sumbang – Isu Kuantum mengenai Ganti rugi Khas kos rawatan Responden/plaintif di hospital swasta − Sama ada prinsip stare decisis terpakai − Prinsip “appellate intervention on the plainly wrong test”. 1 This appeal arises from a dispute that is as personal as it is legal. It relates to the designing and funding of a kitchen renovation between two individuals once on close terms. At its heart lies a simple but contested question of whether the funding of the renovation was undertaken pursuant to an oral binding agreement for reimbursement or was it a generous, perhaps impulsive, gesture made without expectation of repayment. The Appellant/Plaintiff contended that it was the former, in that he undertook the funding of the renovation at the request of the Respondent/Defendant and his wife, based on an understanding that he would be repaid. The Respondent/Defendant, on the other hand, insisted that there was no such agreement, and that if the Appellant chose to incur the cost, he did so voluntarily, without any promise or expectation of reimbursement. As is often the case in civil litigation, this appeal turns on two irreconcilable narratives. The task before the Magistrate was to assess which version was more credible in light of the documentary and oral evidence presented. The credibility of witnesses, the plausibility of the parties’ accounts, and the conduct of both parties before and after the renovation all bore upon the court's ultimate finding. This Court is tasked with evaluating whether the Appellant/Plaintiff has shown any appealable error justifying the reversal of the Magistrate’s decision by way of re-hearing. 1 This is an appeal by the Appellant/Defendant against the decision of Sessions Court in allowing the Respondent/Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment against the Appellant/Defendant in respect of one of the reliefs claimed, that is, liquidated damages. 1 The suit before the Sessions Court remains pending, as the claims for injunctive reliefs and general damages by the Respondent/Plaintiff have yet to be adjudicated. This appeal was fixed for early hearing pursuant to a Certificate of Urgency filed by the Appellant/Defendant, who has also applied for a stay of proceedings in the Sessions Court. 1 The principal question in this appeal is whether the Appellant/Defendant has a defence to the claim for special damages. In other words, the issue is whether there exists any triable issue or question in dispute concerning the claim for liquidated damages. 1 This is the Appellants’ (Defendants in the Sessions Court) appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court in striking out their Defence and Counterclaim. The order to strike out the Appellants’ Defence and Counterclaim and the consequential entry of judgment against the Appellants were not made under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012. Instead, they were made under Order 24 rule 16(1) and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, that is, for failure to comply with the requirements for discovery and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. 1 The single poser raised in this appeal is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and/or in fact in striking out the Appellants’ Defence and Counterclaim, resulting in the entry of judgment against the Appellants. 1 The Appellant, the Plaintiff in the court below, successfully obtained judgment for four months’ unpaid rental of RM320,000.00 against the Respondent, who was the Defendant in the lower court. Notably, there is neither an appeal nor a cross-appeal against this aspect of the Sessions Court’s decision. However, the Sessions Court also ruled in favour of the Respondent’s counterclaim, ordering the return of an earnest deposit of RM450,000.00 paid by the Respondent under a Letter of Offer to Purchase. 1 Both the claim and counterclaim were determined through Order 14A and/or Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012, reflecting the court’s reliance on the summary disposal of legal issues without a full trial. 1 The only matter before this Court is the Appellant’s challenge against the Sessions Court’s decision to allow the Respondent’s counterclaim. 1 This appeal, therefore, turns on a singular but pivotal issue: Did the learned Sessions Court Judge err in law and/or in fact in allowing the Respondent’s counterclaim? 1 Rayuan – kausa tindakan Fitnah – aduan salah laku peguam syarie – responden timbalan pendaftar mahkamah Syariah – buat laporan kepada jawatan kuasa peguam syarie Selangor - Perayu failkan permohonan untuk menghalang Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri dari mewakili Responden – HMS menolak permohonan – Responden bertindak atas kapasiti resma dan bukan peribadi – Pemakaian seksyen 24(2) Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956 – perlu ada sijil pengesahan dari Peguam Negara - Saya berpandangan, Perayu dalam kes ini memulakan satu tindakan saman fitnah terhadap Responden dalam kapasiti peribadinya. Jika Responden menafikan tindakannya bukan dalam kapasiti peribadi tetapi atas arahan Ketuan Jabatannya, ini merupakan satu pembelaan yang boleh dikemukakan - Kamar Penasihat tidak boleh secara pra-matang memutuskan tindakan Responden adalah dalam kapasiti rasmi sedangkan Perayu yang membawa tindakan ini mengatakan sebaliknya dan mahkamah masih belum membuat keputusan kerana perbicaraan penuh masih belum dijalankan – Rayuan dibenarkan. 1 The Appellant/Plaintiff commenced an action for loss of dependency against the Respondents/Defendants pursuant to section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956. Section 7(5) of the said Act expressly provides that a dependency claim “shall be brought within three years after the death of the person deceased.” 1 When the Appellant/Plaintiff initiated the action in the Sessions Court on 29 May 2024, it was within the prescribed limitation period of three years. However, the action was subsequently struck out, albeit with liberty to file afresh, for failure to comply with pre-trial case management directions. 1 The trouble with commencing a fresh action lies in the fact that by the time the Appellant/Plaintiff seeks to refile the action, the three-year limitation period would already have lapsed. Consequently, any new dependency claim would now be time-barred under section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956. To overcome this statutory limitation, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed a Notice of Application on 29 August, 2024 seeking to reinstate the struck-out action pursuant to Order 34 rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012. However, that application was dismissed by the Sessions Court, prompting the present appeal. 1 The key issues arising for determination in this appeal are: (1) Whether the action previously struck out ought to be reinstated pursuant to Order 34 rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012; and (2) Whether the expiry of the limitation period renders the reinstatement of the struck-out action legally untenable or otherwise inappropriate. 1 By way of a Notice of Appeal dated 9 December 2024, the 1st and 2nd Appellants (who were the 2nd and 5th Defendants in the Sessions Court, respectively) appealed to this Court against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge dated 27 November 2024, which dismissed their applications to set aside two Judgments in Default entered against them by the Respondent (the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court) on 3 November 2022 and 30 January 2023, respectively. 1 The appeal centres on the following three issues: • Whether the JIDs entered against the 1st and 2nd Appellants were regular or irregular; • If regular, whether the 1st and 2nd Appellants have disclosed a defence on the merits; and • Whether there was inordinate delay in applying to set aside the JIDs. 1 Civil Procedure - Non-attendance - Case management - Order 34 r 6 ROC -Whether order was a true “unless order” - Mischaracterisation of peremptory order - Notice - Failure of service of solicitors’ withdrawal - Order 64 r 5 ROC - Whether appellant had actual or constructive notice -Affidavit evidence - Reliance on non-affidavit material - Use of court minutes - Contumacious conduct - Whether absence deliberate -Bankruptcy - Requirement of DGI sanction - Proper procedural route -Setting aside or appeal - Natural justice - Right to be heard - Reinstatement - Bona fide defence - Delay. 1 This is an appeal by the Appellant (D1 in the Sessions Court) against the decision of the Sessions Court on 26 July, 2024 in allowing the Respondent’s (D2 in the Sessions Court) application pursuant to Order 24 for discovery of documents (in the form of bank statements). 1 To all intents and purposes, this discovery application relates to two distinct documents. The first is the Appellant’s bank statement for November, 2022 and the second are the Appellant’s bank statements after November, 2022. 1 The key issue for consideration by this Court is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge had made any appealable error in exercising her discretion in allowing the Respondent’s application for discovery. 1 Appeal - Whether the Appellant had raised arguable and substantive issues regarding the non-compliance with the HP Act, section 4 1(b)(ii) and section 5(1) and whether the Appellant is entitled to reimbursement of the payment made under a void contract - section 4(1)(a) is applicable in this relationship between Appellant and Respondent, as the Appellant had signed the written statement in Part I of the Second Schedule as required under section 4(1)(a) of the HP Act - Appeal dismissed. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appellate jurisdiction - Dismissal of striking out application by Sessions Court - Non-appealable matters - Whether appeal is incompetent in view of Section 28(1)(c) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether appeal ought to be dismissed in limine – Failure to furnish further and better particulars within time as ordered - Inadequacy of particulars furnished - Default order to strike out entire statement of claim 1 Communication of Acceptance - Acceptance of offer by way of signing of Mutual Agreement - Communication of acceptance need not be by delivery of the signed agreement but by way of correspondence between parties - Without prejudice letter relates only to negotiations aimed at a settlement between parties in a dispute - It do not apply after settlement concluded. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — Res judicata — Issue estoppel — Defendant ought to have raised issue on substituted service order at the judgement in default setting-aside stage — Whether Defendant is estopped from setting aside substituted service order after having elected to pursue multiple proceedings including appeal to High Court and Court of Appeal CIVIL PROCEDURE — Setting aside — Substituted service order — Judgment in default set aside as a consequence of setting aside substituted service order — Whether validity of order can only be challenged in proceedings instituted for that purpose — Whether can be challenged collaterally in other proceedings 1 1. The Appellant/Plaintiff’s main grievance arose from an Unless Order issued by the Sessions Court, requiring the payment of security for costs into court. As the Appellant/Plaintiff has since deposited the sum of RM20,000.00 as ordered, the Respondent/Defendant contended that the appeal has been rendered academic. However, this Court is inclined to agree with the Appellant/Plaintiff that the central issue, namely, whether it was proper for the Sessions Court to impose an Unless Order in the context of a security for costs application, remains a live and justiciable question. 1 2. This appeal raises two issues. The first concerns whether an order for security for costs ought to be granted. The second and more crucial issue is whether the Sessions Court’s order in paragraph (d), described by the Appellant/Plaintiff as “draconian”, is permissible within the context of a security for costs application. 1 KONTRAK: Rayuan dari Mahkamah Rendah − Penghakiman terus dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen − Sama ada dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen mengenai fakta kes, dokumen dan nas undang-undang mengenai penghakiman terus adalah khilaf? − Mahkamah Tinggi mendapati tiada kesilapan yang telah dibuktikan berdasarkan kepada alasan penghakiman beliau − Plaintif berjaya untuk memperoleh penghakiman terus/muktamad terhadap defendan. 1 This appeal by the Appellant/Plaintiff arises from the Sessions Court's decision to allow the Respondent/Defendant’s application to amend its Defence. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Beyond the substantive issue of whether the Sessions Court was correct in allowing the Respondent/Defendant’s application to amend its Defence, this appeal also raises a critical preliminary procedural question: whether a subordinate court’s decision to allow or disallow an application to amend pleadings, as in this case, is appealable. 1 The primary issue for consideration in this appeal is the question of whether the decision by the Sessions Court which allowed the Respondent/Defendant to amend its Defence is appealable to this Court. 1 If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, this Court is required to deliberate on the issue of whether the Sessions Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the said application by the Respondent/Defendant. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal from Sessions Court- Whether questions suitable for determination under Order 14A – Applications – Determination of questions of law and Summary determination without full trial –Whether material facts relating to questions are in dispute- Whether the Plaintiffs, the owners of only a few units, have locus standi to challenge Form G7 and the CCC which were issued for the entire development – particular the claim for liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) for delay- reasonable cause of action for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and/or breach of statutory duty - monetary jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under Sub-section.65(1)(b) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948. 1 Interlocutory appeal – Civil Procedure – Amendment – Statement of claim amended without leave – Amendment filed before pleadings deemed to be closed – Amendment made at an early stage of proceeding – Whether regular and in order – Application to disallow amendment made without leave – No cogent grounds – Non-appearance of solicitor during hearing – Appeal dismissed – Order 20 Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 This appeal turns on the legal effect of an extension of time granted by the housing authority, the applicability of the Federal Court decision in Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Ors [2024] 8 CLJ 519, and whether the Plaintiffs have a sustainable statutory claim under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989. 1 INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL: An appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge allowing the defendant’s application to strike out the writ – Whether the learned SCJ erred in finding that the plaintiff has no reasonable cause of action against the defendant – Whether the plaintiff’s claim is based on a running account concept – Whether the invoices must be treated as independent and distinct from one another, rather than as part of a continuous series of transactions recorded in a running account – The relevant question of fact to be ventilated at trial is whether the dealings constituted a running account – Whether the limitation accrued – Order 18, Rule 19(1) (a) (b) and/or (d), Rules of Court 2012. 1 Appeal on striking out - Abandoned project – Land acquisition – Alleged trust - Preliminary issue on jurisdiction of Sessions Court - Whether Defendants are successors in title and permitted assigns under the SPA – Whether the SPA are enforceable against the Defendants – Doctrine of privity of contract 1 Appeal – O14 and O18 - application for summary judgment pursuant to Order 14 of the ROC and an application for striking out under Order 18 Rule 19 involve two different sets of principles, tests and burdens of proof. The facts of the case may be similar, as may the issues arising - I am of the opinion that consideration in an application for summary judgment is different from an application to strike out under O18. Therefore, the SCJ's reason, at paragraph 13 of his GOJ, is a misdirection of the law – appeal allowed. 1 INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL - For a detention and/or preservation of the sum of RM350,000.00 to be paid by the second defendant to the plaintiff in the Session Court Ampang within 7 days from the date of the Order – Whether the balance of convenience lies in allowing the preservation order - Whether there is a serious issue to be tried - The plaintiff and the 1st defendant executed a Joint Venture Agreement to purchase a 48-acre land at Pandan Perdana – The plaintiff paid the money into the second defendant’s account at the request of the first defendant – The second defendant acknowledged the payment and subsequently pay the money to the first defendant - The first defendant denied the plaintiff’s allegation regarding the payment sum RM350,000.00. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE - The purpose of this rule is to provide security for the property in question - Order 29 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 Appeal – case was struck out due to failure to attend court on trial date – applied to reinstate – SCJ dismissed it – no application to set aside the order of the SCJ - Appellant has failed to provide any reasonable and convincing justification for his absence on the trial date that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretion in his favour - Appellant actually refused to attend the trial because he had not filed a witness statement and was unprepared to testify in Court as a witness in this case, rather than due to a mistaken date that is unsupported by any evidence – Appeal dismissed. 1 Civil Procedure: Appeal from lower court – Whether proceeding and judgment are null and void ab initio due to Plaintiff bankrupt status – Whether the court has functus officio. Insolvency: Undischarge Bankrupt – Insolvency Act s. 8 (1)(a), 38 (1) (a) – Whether a bankrupt can maintain or commence action without sanction from Director General of Insolvency – Exception for sanction – Whether sanction can be obtained in retrospective - 1 RAYUAN INTERLOKUTORI: Permohonan mengenepikan penghakiman ingkar – Defendan tidak menjelaskan alasan kelewatan – Permohonan pengenepian difailkan diluar masa – Tuntutan plaintif gantirugi akibat kerosakan kabel fiber optik akibat kerja-kerja tanah oleh defendan – Sama ada penghakiman ingkar teratur – Defendan mengakui penerimaan writ tetapi tidak memfailkan memorandum kehadiran – Sama ada defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit – Defendan meminta butiran tuntutan namun tidak berbuat apa-apa setelah maklum balas diterima daripada plaintif - Aturan 13 kaedah 8 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 This appeal arises from a scenario all too familiar in civil litigation: a judgment in default is swiftly entered by one party against another. The party against whom the default judgment is entered will then seek the court’s intervention to have it set aside and for the matter to be adjudicated on the merits. When faced with such applications, the courts must walk a careful line: on one hand, upholding procedural discipline; on the other, ensuring that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of technicality. While the Rules of Court 2012 empower the courts to set aside default judgments, this discretion is not unfettered. It must be exercised judiciously, in accordance with well-settled legal principles and the unique facts of each case. This appeal is a testament to that delicate judicial balancing act. At the heart of this appeal lies a singular, overarching question: should this Court intervene and overturn the decision of the Sessions Court in refusing to set aside a judgment in default entered against the Appellant/Defendant? 1 On 15 November 2024, the Sessions Court dismissed the Appellant/Plaintiff’s Notice of Application in Enclosure 34 (filed on 26 April, 2024, for, inter alia, a preliminary determination of a number of Issues/Question pursuant to Order 14A and/or Order 33 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012) with costs of RM5,000.00. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present appeal on 28 November, 2024 against the above decision of the Sessions Court. The two apposite issues is this appeal are: 1. Whether the decision of the Sessions Court in dismissing the Appellant/Plaintiff’ Notice of Application is amenable to appeal; and 2. If the first issue is answered in the affirmative, whether the learned Sessions Court Judge committed any appealable error warranting appellate intervention. 1 This is an appeal by EUM Realty Sdn Bhd, the Third Defendant in the Sessions Court, pursuant to Order 55 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in dismissing its application in Enclosure 19 with costs in the cause. Enclosure 19 at the Sessions Court was premised on Order 33 rule 2 and/or Order 15 rule 6 and/or Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Sessions Court had erred in law and/or in fact in dismissing the Appellant’s Notice of Application in Enclosure 19. 1 1. This appeal arises from a not uncommon scenario in civil procedure, where a judgment in default has been entered against a defendant, who thereafter seeks to have it set aside. 1 2. The Respondents/Plaintiffs in the court below commenced an action against three defendants. The Respondents/Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their claim against the First Defendant. Judgments in default were thereafter entered against the Second and Third Defendants. The present appeal concerns the application by the Second Defendant to set aside the default judgment entered against it. That application was dismissed by the Sessions Court with costs of RM3,000.00, giving rise to the present appeal by the Appellant (the Second Defendant in the court below). The default judgment against the Third Defendant is not in issue in this appeal. 1 Road accident - negligence - statutory duty to maintain roads - third party indemnity - admissibility of photograph without calling photographer - apportionment of liability in main action. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal — Striking out of Record of appeal — Defects in the appeal record - Failure to serve the draft index to the appeal record — Whether failure is fatal or curable - Mandatory rules - Order 55 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 - Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Appeal after full trial – Defamation – Case remitted to Sessions Court for reconsideration - Sessions Court is not functus officio – Defence of justification - Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 – Whether the essential or substantial truth of the defamatory imputations has been proven on balance of probabilities - Whether onus of proof has shifted – Failure to call material witness - Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 – Whether Sessions Court Judge failed to properly analyse the entirety of the evidence 1 Tort—Negligence—Road traffic accident—Appeal—Quantum of damages only Damages—General damages—Cerebral concussion—GCS 15/15—No intracranial injury or residual disability—Award excessive—Appellate reduction Damages—Waist and abdominal injuries—No medical evidence—Bills insufficient—Failure of proof—Awards set aside Evidence—Medical evidence—Burden of proof—Non-cross-examination—Does not cure absence of proof Appeal—Appellate interference—Wrong principle—Misapprehension of facts—Wholly erroneous estimate Practice and Procedure—Record of appeal—Omission of notes of evidence—No prejudice—Not fatal 1 Appeal after full trial – Road accident – Insurance company intervened – Counterclaim for insurance fraud - Whether Plaintiff has proved its intended case as pleaded - Res ipsa loquitur – Whether there was a collision - Whether it is due to 2nd Defendant’s negligence – Inconsistent testimonies – Contradict pleading - No objective evidence of collision - Credibility of corroborating witnesses - Appellate interference - Failure to properly evaluate the totality of the evidence 1 Appeal after full trial – Impugned judgment – Setting aside judgment allegedly obtained by way of fraud – Claim that part of the assessed damages was allegedly premised on falsified documents – Claim that the signature was forged – Burden of proof – Fraud – Forgery – On whom the onus of proof lies in proving the fraudulent acts – Whether the burden of proof was beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities – Whether the failure of the Plaintiff to discharge initial burden of proof would render the burden to be shifted to the Defendant – The importance of key witnesses testimonies in proving fraudulent acts – Section 101 and 102 of Evidence Act 1950 – No appealable error 1 Appeal after full trial – Duty of stakeholder – Breach of Stakeholder Agreement – Right of forfeiture – Whether the earnest deposit hold on stakeholder was validly and properly forfeited – Whether the 45-days due diligence period commences upon receipt of all documents – Third party indemnity claim – Oral testimony contradicted the express terms of the Stakeholders Agreement – Variation of agreement requires valid consideration – Evidence of terms of contract reduced to form of document – Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement – Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act 1950 – Appeal allowed – The trial Judge’s decision set aside – Appellate intervention required when the trial judge is plainly wrong in his findings 1 Appeal after full trial – Road accident – Appeal on liability and quantum of damages – Apportionment of liability – Extent of Defendant's contributory negligence – Conflicting testimonies between witnesses – Whether there is a plain error in Sessions Court’s judgment – Apportionment of liability varied to 50:50 - Whether damages awarded appropriate – No appealable error on assessment of damages – Appeal allowed in part 1 Contract Law – Email as contract – Offer and acceptance – Implied/ oral agreement – Certainty of terms – Intention to create legal relations – Consideration. Evidence – Documentary proof – Emails, payments, reports – Bare denial – Inference from conduct – Burden of proof (s.101, 104 Evidence Act). Commercial Services – Consultancy fees – Project management work – Unpaid remuneration. Company Law – Separate legal personality – Director’s personal liability – Joint liability based on conduct. Appellate Review – Standard of intervention – Whether Sessions Court plainly wrong – Factual findings supported by evidence. Civil Procedure – Appeal – Contractual dispute – Assessment of contemporaneous correspondence. 1 Tort — Negligence — Road traffic accident — Liability not in issue — Appeal on quantum Damages — Assessment — Loss of consciousness — Mild traumatic brain injury — Modest enhancement Damages — Assessment — Shoulder impingement — Functional limitation — Award enhanced Damages — Special damages — Physiotherapy — Strict proof — Award affirmed Damages — Future medical expenses — Arcoxia — Speculative claim — Duty to mitigate — Claim dismissed Appeal — Appellate restraint — Limited interference with quantum 1 CIVIL APPEAL: The defendant appeals against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in allowing the plaintiff’s claim and dismissing the defendant’s counter-claim. The plaintiff’s claim is for the recovery of a 10% deposit of RM467,489.86 paid for the purchase of land - The issue document of title of the said land is subject to a restriction in interest, which states – Tanah ini tidak boleh dipindahmilik, dipajak atau digadai melainkan dengan kebenaran Pihak Berkuasa Negeri - By a letter dated 3.8.2017 from Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor (PTGS) addressed to the plaintiff, the application to list the plaintiff under the Third Schedule of the Malay Reservations Enactment (FMS Cap. 142) (MRE (SELANGOR)) was rejected - Whether the Sale and Purchase Agreement is an illegal contract - Whether the plaintiff has failed to fulfil its obligation to change the shareholding structure of Handy Goals Mining Sdn Bhd. 1 CONTRACT LAW: The intention of the parties should be determined from within the four corners of the instrument - Clause 1.1(ii) of the SPA shall only become unconditional upon receipt of the State Authority’s consent for the land transfer to the plaintiff – Section 24(a) and Section 66 of the Contract Act 1950. 1 MALAY RESERVATIONS ENACTMENT (FMS CAP. 142) (MRE (SELANGOR)): Definition of Malay – Section 2 and 8 of the MRE Selangor. 1 Appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge. Tenancy dispute arising from a tenancy agreement on the termination of the tenancy, the return of the deposit, and the Respondents’ claim for double rental under section 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956. Appeal is allowed. Counterclaim for the balance of the tenancy deposit is allowed. 1 This appeal arises from a negligence action in which it was not disputed that the Appellant (the Plaintiff in the court below) sustained injuries. The fundamental issue for determination is whether those injuries were caused by the negligence of the First Respondent (the First Defendant in the court below), or whether they resulted from some alternative cause. 1 A notable feature of this case is the shift in position taken by the First and Second Respondents (the Defendants in the Court below), that is, the driver and owner of the vehicle in question, who initially denied liability, but later went further to deny any involvement in the accident altogether. To those familiar with motor vehicle insurance litigation, such shifts in position are not uncommon and often raise concerns regarding the veracity of claims, particularly in light of the prevalence of fraudulent claims intended to deceive insurers. 1 The parties are referred to as they were in the court below. 1 The central and sole issue in this appeal is whether the Plaintiff has established negligence on the part of the Defendants. The appeal, therefore, turns entirely on the question of liability. 1 The Plaintiff has withdrawn his appeal on the issue of quantum, and there is no cross-appeal by the Defendants in respect of the awards granted by the Sessions Court on quantum. 1 A break-in does not merely result in the loss of possessions. More often than not, it leaves behind an enduring sense of vulnerability and insecurity. The trauma of discovering that one’s personal space has been violated can be profound. While some may contend that it is preferable to return to find a home ransacked rather than to be confronted face-to-face by intruders, that is not the issue before this Court. 1 This is a suit brought by the Appellant/Plaintiff against the Respondent/Defendant, requiring this Court to adjudicate upon the matter by reference to the factual matrix of the case, the evidence adduced, the applicable legal principles, and the relevant provisions of law, in order to determine whether the Respondent/Defendant, as a Management Corporation, is liable in law to compensate the Appellant/Plaintiff for the losses sustained. This determination is undertaken by way of a re-hearing. 1 The parties are referred to as they were in the Sessions Court. 1 The essential issues for determination are as follows: 1 First, whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, whether arising in tort and/or pursuant to the Strata Management Act 2013. 1 Second, if the answer to the first issue is in the affirmative, whether the Defendant breached that duty of care. 1 Third, in the event such breach is established, what relief or remedy the Plaintiff is entitled to in law. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Application for an extension of time to file notice of appeal – Court has discretion to grant extension – Whether extension of time should be allowed - counsel for the appellant was unable to contact the appellant - O.3 r.5(1) Rules of Court 2012 1 Appeal from Sessions Court – Motor vehicle accident – Whether plaintiff requires lifelong care and supervision – Whether award for cost of care is contrary to expert evidence – Whether multiplicand is reasonable – Whether one-third deduction for contingencies is warranted – Whether judgment sum should be deposited with Amanah Raya Bhd – Whether cross-appeal in respect of future medical and rehabilitation expenses is competent. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE – Appeal – Session Court Judge granted an order for the Judgment Debtor Summons to be issued against the directors – Judgment debtor did not contest the order – Whether the Session Court Judge erred in concluding that the appellant had the means to satisfy the judgment dated 29.12.2022 – Examination of judgment debtor – Order 48, rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Parties bound by – Whether facts and issues not pleaded may be adduced. 1 TORT KECUAIAN: Rayuan dari Mahkamah Rendah − kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif yang membeli sebuah kenderaan yang diimport − Prinsip undang-undang “bona fide purchaser” − Kegagalan mengalihkan benan pembuktian − Obligasi Perayu/Defendan Pertama yang meminjamkan Approved Permit (AP) kepada pihak lain − Kerugian Plaintif untuk menggunakan Kenderaan yang dibelinya perlu dipampas. 1 This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge, who, after a full trial, dismissed the Appellant’s claim against the Respondent with costs. Sesion Court Judge did not misdirect herself in law or fact and had sufficiently evaluated the evidence. The legal burden remained on the Appellant throughout the trial, that no evidence was adduced to show that the works were not carried out, and that no prima facie case of fraud was established. The decision of the Sessions Court is upheld and affirmed. 1 Rayuan – isu liability - Isu teras yang perlu diputuskan dalam keadaan kes ini adalah samada berlakunya kemalangan pada malam 5.6.2018 yang melibatkan penunggang motorsikal, simati dengan pemandu kereta - Pembelaan Defendan-Defendan menjurus kepada penafian kemalangan pernah berlaku atau alternatifnya, jikapun berlaku, ianya atas kecuaian simati. Agak ironi dengan penafian ini, D1 tidak dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan sanggahan. Maka, pembelaan Defendan jelas rapuh dan tiada sebab untuk versi Plaintif tidak boleh diterima - rayuan terhadap liabiliti ini dibenarkan dengan kos mengikut skala, keputusan HMS diketepikan dan diperintahkan bahawa Responden/Defendan bertanggungan 100%. Perintah HMS mengenai kuantum telah diterima dan disahkan. 1 Rayuan selepas perbicaraan penuh. Tindakan berasaskan dakwaan keujudan satu perjanjian lisan dan tuntutan bayaran sejumlah RM101,332.00 yang diaktakan sebagai hak plaintif daripada pelaburan. Plaintif gagal membuktikan kewujudan satu perjanjian yang mengikat dengan terma-terma yang jelas. Rayuan dibenarkan, keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen diketepikan dan tuntutan Plaintif ditolak. 1 KONTRAK: Rayuan dari Mahkamah Rendah − Perjanjian Penyewaan − Tempoh sewaan tetap selama 2 tahun − Sama ada wujud periodic tenancy? − Tiada pembaharuan kontrak sewa − Sama ada Plaaintif masih penyewa yang sah selepas tempoh sewaan tamat? − Sama ada Defendan melanggar/memungkiri perjanjian dengan memasuki perjanjiandengan penyewa lain? − Sama ada Plaintif berhak kepada relief yang dituntut? − Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen khilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang yang menolak tuntutan? 1 Appeal from Sessions Court to the High Court - Principal company already wound up - Plaintiff suing directors as guarantors - Directors signed guarantee for a different company - Plaintiff failed to seek leave pursuant to Section 471 Companies Act 2016 - Plaintiff required to sue principal company to ascertain liability 1 This appeal arises from a running down action that has left both parties dissatisfied with the outcome at the Sessions Court. The Appellants/Defendants challenge the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge, who found the First Appellant/Defendant 100% liable and awarded RM507,984.00 to the Respondent/Plaintiff for loss of future earnings. Meanwhile, the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal, disputing the award of RM40,000.00 in general damages for severe traumatic brain injury, arguing that it fails to reflect the gravity of the injury sustained. This appeal, therefore, revolves around contested findings of liability and the adequacy of damages awarded. 1 The first issue for this Court’s consideration is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in law or fact in finding the First Appellant 100% liable for the accident. 1 The second issue is whether the Sessions Court correctly awarded RM507,984.00 to the Respondent/Plaintiff for loss of future earnings. 1 The third and final issue concerns the quantum of damages awarded for the injury suffered by the Respondent/Plaintiff. 1 [1] Ini merupakan rayuan oleh Perayu (Plaintif di Mahkamah Sesyen) terhadap keputusan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen yang telah menolak tuntutan Perayu terhadap Responden (Defendan di Mahkamah Sesyen) untuk gantirugi bagi fitnah dengan kos sebanyak RM5,000.00. Pihak-pihak adalah dirujuk sebagaimana di Mahkamah Sesyen. 1 [2] Pada keseluruhannya, terdapat tiga kenyataan yang dikatakan oleh Plaintif sebagai terjumlah kepada fitnah terhadap beliau. 1 Isu-Isu Utama 1 [3] Isu utama ialah sama ada elemen-elemen untuk fitnah telah dibuktikan sebagai ujud di dalam kes ini. 1 [4] Berikutan daripada isu utama di atas adalah isu-isu sampingan seperti berikut, iaitu: 1 • Sama ada Hakim Mahkahmah Sesyen (HMS) terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan bahawa Plaintif gagal membuktikan kenyataan fitnah pertama dan sama ada corroborative evidence diperlukan untuk menyokong dakwaan Plaintif; 1 • Sama ada HMS telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan bahawa Plaintif gagal memplidkan serta membuktikan special damage berkenaan dengan kenyataan fitnah pertama tersebut; dan 1 • Sama ada HMS terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila menggunakan prinsip pembelaan privilege dalam penentuan kenyataaan fitnah kedua dan ketiga padahal pembelaan privilege tidak diplidkan oleh Defendan. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal- Application to amend notice of appeal-Whether prejudice caused-Whether delay of filing application is fatal-Whether application made mala fide and abuse of the court’s process-No specific provision to amend Notice of Appeal-O.55 r.9; Rules of Court 2012 1 The Appellant/Plaintiff claimed to have sustained serious injuries, including the amputation of two fingers, as a result of a motorcycle accident on 17 February 2018, while riding a motorcycle bearing registration number WYY 4581. The accident was said to have involved another vehicle bearing registration number WKG 189. The First Respondent/Defendant was the driver and owner of motorcar WKG 189. The Second Respondent/Defendant, the insurer of the said vehicle, was subsequently allowed to intervene in these proceedings following a successful appeal to the High Court, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal (see Tokio Marine Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad v Dharmalingam & Anor [2021] 8 AMR 681; [2021] CLJU 1647; [2021] MLRHU 1595 and Dharmalingam Sangamany lwn Sivakumar Rajagopal & Satu Lagi [2022] MLRAU 24). The Sessions Court dismissed the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim and allowed the counterclaim by the Second Respondent/Defendant after a full trial. The Appellant/Plaintiff appealed to this Court against the decision of the Sessions Court. This Court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000.00. The Appellant/Plaintiff has now appealed to the Court of Appeal (in Enclosure 33) against the decision of this Court on the issues of liability, quantum, and the counterclaim. These are the grounds of decision of this Court. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal- Whether appellate court should interfere with findings of fact-Whether Sessions Court Judge had erred in principle, misapprehended facts, or failed to take into consideration relevant facts in arriving at decision, thus warranting appellate interference 1 TORT: Negligence-Professional negligence-Respondent appointed appellants as solicitors for sale and purchase of property-Transaction failed-Respondent initially claimed against vendors but lost his claim-Respondent discovered several documents prepared by appellants were inconsistent, inaccurate, and irregular-Respondent sued appellants for professional negligence-Sessions Court found in favour of Respondent-Whether Sessions Court Judge erred by not requiring expert evidence to establish applicable standard of care-Whether Sessions Court Judge had disregarded binding precedents and misapplied the law-Effect of electing no case to answer-Whether negligence was proven on balance of probabilities 1 NUR FARIHA BINTI HAIMI (Menuntut sebagai isteri yang sah dan tanggungan yang sah kepada Mohd Helmi Bin Ngadimin (Simati) untuk kehilangan tanggungan, kesedihan dan dukacitaan serta kerugian perbelanjaan di bawah Seksyen 7, Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 serta menuntut untuk faedah estet Simati di bawah Seksyen 8, Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956) & 3 OTHERS v SYED MUZAFFAR SHAH BIN SYED AZMAN SHAH 1 TORT — Negligence — Road accident — Respondent involved in an accident with the deceased’s motorcycle — Dependency claim by deceased's spouse and children — Whether appellants discharged burden of showing negligence — Whether court should attach any weight to IO's opinion 1 DAMAGES — Assessment — Fatal accident — Loss of dependency — Whether appellate court could interfere with assessment — Whether award was inordinately high or manifestly excessive 1 Appeal - Tort of abuse of process - Discontinuance of main action – Full trial on counterclaim - Whether trial judge erred in law and/or fact in determining that Plaintiff is liable for tort of abuse of process - Law on appellate intervention – Whether there is dominant collateral purpose for initiating the main action – Whether there is reasonable cause of action – Burden of proof - Circumstantial evidence – Presumption of adverse inference - Insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence 1 Appeal against an order for summary judgment - Recovery of property management fees and other charges for services rendered - Alleged triable issues - Unproven staff costs - Claim amount was inflated and lacked substantiation – Inconclusive evidence - No supporting documents - Prima facie case not proved 1 RAYUAN SIVIL: Defendan merayu terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen yang membenarkan tuntutan plaintif bagi wang pendahuluan yang terhutang – Plaintif merupakan koperasi yang ditubuhkan di Malaysia dan menjalankan antara lain aktiviti pendidikan dengan membuka sebuah sekolah yang dikenali Sekolah Al-Amin Kota Mas School – Defendan merupakan perbadanan yang dipersetujui ditubuhkan oleh plaintif semasa Mesyuarat Agung Luar Biasa pada 26.11.2015 bagi menjalankan perniagaan berkenaan pendidikan termasuk menguruskan pentadbiran dan perjalanan sekolah tersebut – Melalui mesyuarat bersama pentadbir 10/2017 antara plaintif dan defendan dipersetujui bahawa defendan mengambilalih sepenuhnya pengurusan sekolah tersebut dengan membayar balik secara ansuran kesemua wang pendahuluan yang telah dibelanjakan oleh plaintif dalam pembangunan sekolah tersebut – Sama ada tuntutan plaintif untuk wang pendahuluan terhalang oleh res judicata – Sama ada perjanjian wang pendahuluan adalah termasuk terma defendan boleh menduduki premis dan meneruskan operasi sekolah di premis yang disewa daripada plaintif – Sama ada wujud khilaf nyata oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang telah membenarkan tuntutan plaintif. 1 Appeal on liability – cross appeal on quantum – Accident - Whether evidence of SD2 corroborate Plaintiff’s version of events - Inference from physical evidence – Consistency of the Plaintiff’s version of events with the available evidence and the probabilities of the case - Whether Plaintiff was contributorily negligent for not keeping a safe distance and proper lookout – Claim for customized insoles and silicone toes 1 Bidang kuasa Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan - penyebab langsung kejadian - representasi pembekal perkhidmatan - pembelaan volenti non fit injuria - vikarius liabiliti - Seksyen 90A AK 1950. 1 RAYUAN SIVIL: Rayuan oleh plaintif terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkaitan isu liabiliti – Plaintif terlibat dalam kemalangan jalan raya dengan pemandu motorlori treler No. JHV8524 yang dipandu oleh defendan pertama, manakala defendan kedua merupakan pemilik berdaftar motorlori JHV8524. Kejadian berlaku pada 23.12.2020 jam 7.30 pagi di KM 403.7 Lebuh raya Utara Selatan – Sama ada terdapat khilaf nyata oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dalam menolak tuntutan plaintif. 1 PLIDING: Defendan-defendan tidak memplidkan fakta-fakta yang menjadi asas pembelaan – Aturan 18 kaedah 7(1) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 Ini adalah rayuan Perayu terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS) dalam satu kes kemalangan jalan raya, di mana keputusan terhadap liabiliti tidak lagi dipertikaikan dan rayuan ini adalah terhad kepada isu kuantum gantirugi yang diperintahkan oleh HMS kepada Responden. Perayu telah gagal membuktikan sebarang salah arah prinsip atau kekhilafan oleh HMS dalam menilai kuantum gantirugi yang diperintahkan. Rayuan ini adalah tanpa merit dan dengan ini ditolak sepenuhnya. Keputusan HMS berhubung kuantum gantirugi dikekalkan 1 Rayuan: Sama ada hakim bicara nyata khilaf dalam menolak tuntutan plaintif. 1 Tort Fitnah: Penerbitan artikel-artikel yang diadukan dalam Utusan Online pada 25 Julai 2022 bertajuk “Penggunaan perut ayam sebagai makanan ikan membolehkan mereka menjimatkan kos tetapi ini menyebabkan pencemaran sungai dan bau yang busuk” – Artikel dikongsi dan dimuatnaik di laman sesawang www.utusan.com.my pada 25 Julai 2022 bertajuk “WARGA KEMBOJA KUASAI PASARAN IKAN AIR TAWAR” beserta gambar sangkar ikan – Artikel yang diterbitkan pada 9 Ogos 2022 dalam Utusan Online melalui aplikasi Facebook mengandungi gambar bangsal dan sangkar ikan dan kenyataan “Perbezaan harga sumber makanan yang ketara ini membolehkan penternak warga asing menjual ikan ternakan dengan harga sekitar RM10 atau RM11 sekilogram manakala penternak lain yang menggunakan makanan pellet ikan sepenuhnya perlu menjual hasil ternakan sekitar RM15 atau RM16 sekilogram” – Sama ada kandungan dalam artikel-artikel tersebut telah memfitnah dan memalukan plaintif kerana terdapat gambar bangsal dan sangkar ikan milik plaintif yang dimuatnaik bersama-sama dengan artikel-artikel tersebut. 1 Penerbitan artikel-artikel yang diadukan oleh defendan tidak dipertikaikan – Sama ada artikel yang diterbitkan oleh defendan merujuk kepada plaintif – Sama ada kandungan artikel tersebut merendahkan maruah plaintif pada pandangan masyarakat dan menyebabkan plaintif dimalukan atau direndah-rendahkan – Plaintif mengaku bukan warga Kemboja – Gambar bangsal plaintif yang diterbitkan diakui tidak menunjukkan nama atau identiti diri plaintif – Sama ada gambar tersebut tergolong dalam istilah ‘pengataan’ menurut takrifan seksyen 2 Akta Fitnah 1957 – Plaintif tidak menamakan penulis artikel sebagai defendan bersama. 1 This appeal serves as a reminder of a well-recognised reality in civil litigation: obtaining judgment is often only half the battle. A successful judgment creditor frequently faces further challenges in enforcing the judgment against an unwilling or uncooperative judgment debtor. The enforcement process, therefore, becomes a necessary but sometimes arduous continuation of the legal journey. 1 In the present case, the judgment creditor invoked section 4 of the Debtors Act 1957 by initiating Judgment Debtor Summons proceedings to compel satisfaction of a judgment debt. Dissatisfied with the outcome of those proceedings, the Judgment Creditor has now brought this appeal to challenge the Order made by the learned Sessions Court Judge. 1 The primary issue for determination in this appeal is whether there exists any valid ground for this Court to intervene and vary the Order made by the learned Sessions Court Judge pursuant to the Judgment Debtor Summons proceedings. 1 These are consolidated appeals by the Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 (the Appellants herein) against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge who after full trial, found both liable for defamation and awarded damages and injunctive relief in favour of the Plaintiffs (the Respondents herein). 1 UNDANG-UNDANG TORT: Kemalangan jalan raya – Rayuan mengenai isu liabiliti – Dapatan Mahkamah Rendah diakaskan pada peringkat rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi − Agihan liabiliti ialah 50:50 – Sama ada Plaintif berjaya dalam beban pembuktiannya – Pembelaan memplidkan Defendan Pertama terlibat dalam kemalangan tersebut & memplidkan Plaintif cuai – Tiada saksi Defendan Pertama dipanggil − Keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat dan Laporan Kimia − Prinsip “appellate intervention on the plainly wrong test”. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Finding of facts by Trial Judge - Whether the Sessions Court Judge had erred during trial – Whether High Court intervention is warranted – Appeal dismissed DEFAMATION: Elements of defamation – Interpretation of defamatory words – Reference of defamatory statement - Publication to third parties 1 This court does not find that the Plaintiff had breached the terms of the Sale Contract dated 16.10.2020 as claimed by the 1st Defendant as 60 sets of SCP had been supplied by the Plaintiff as was found by the Learned Sessions Court Judge. 1 Whether the variations were agreed by the parties and whether the Plaintiff’s claim was disputed by the 1st Defendant. This court is unable to agree with the 1st Defendant’s contention that the Learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in fact and in law in allowing this claim by the Plaintiff. 1 Whether a Notice of Demand is required to be given to the 2nd Defendant. , there is no requirement for a demand to be made to the 2nd Defendant being the guarantor as he had taken himself to be the principal debtor despite there exist a on demand pre-requisite in the guarantee agreement. 1 Whether a Penal Notice can be allowed for a purely monetary judgment. Learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in allowing the Penal Notice for a purely monetary judgment to be endorsed in the Judgment. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — Appeal — Interference by appellate court — Whether appellate court should be slow to interfere — Trial judge had the benefit of assessing the evidence 1 Defamation — Online publication — Allegation of breach of Movement Control Order — Use of outdated photograph — Juxtaposition creating misleading defamatory meaning — Reasonable reader test Defamation — Media law — Responsible journalism — Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd — Failure to verify facts and seek response — Defence of qualified privilege not established Defamation — Neutral reportage — Claim of “asking for verification” — Verification only after publication — Effect limited to mitigation of damages Defamation — Malice — Reckless disregard for truth — Misleading use of photograph — Legal malice inferred Civil procedure — Pleadings — Order 92 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 — Minor language irregularity — Curable defect — Order 1 r 8 applied Appeal — Error of law and fact — Appeal allowed — Sessions Court decision set aside 1 Rayuan - taksiran gantirugi - kes fitnah - gantirugi teladan - HMS khilaf menghargai secara kehakiman fakta bahawa Defendan telah bertindak secara melulu dan beremosi dalam membuat hantaran yang berunsur fitnah dan mempunyai tuduhan jenayah yang berat - Rayuan dibenarkan sebahagian - gantirugi teladan dinaikkan - award lain dikekalkan. 1 Appeal – Defamation – Whether the impugned words are defamatory or capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory imputations - Whether the ordinary reasonable person was likely to understand the impugned words in a defamatory way, under the circumstances in which the impugned words were published – Defence of Justification and fair comment 1 CIVIL APPEAL: Defamation action by the plaintiff against the defendant - The defendant appealed against the decision of the Session Court Judge in allowing the claim - The plaintiff is a subsidiary of LYC Healthcare Berhad and operates a confinement centre - The defendant’s wife was a customer of the plaintiff who stayed at the plaintiff’s centre for 28 days under the confinement package from 15 December 2020 to 11 January 2021 following her delivery – The defendant alleged that on 8 January 2021, his wife suffered food poisoning after consuming food prepared at the plaintiff’s centre on 7 January 2021- The defendant, via his Facebook account at URL https://www.facebook.com/ling.yexiang, posted and published statements that the plaintiff alleges to be defamatory – The same publication was published by the defendant on the Malaysian Blacklisted Confinement Centre Facebook Public Forum - Whether the words complained of are capable of defaming the plaintiff as a matter of law - Whether the statements in their ordinary meaning or as a whole would be understood by an ordinary, reasonable person to carry defamatory imputations - Whether the unequivocal apology ordered by the trial judge is excessive, given that the defendant only published his statement on his Facebook. 1 EVIDENCE LAW: Burden o f proof – Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950. 1 Civil Appeal – Recovery of money – Whether the sum given is an investment or a personal loan – Probability of the case based on undisputed facts, pleaded case and evidence – Misapprehension of facts and law – Presumption of moneylending - Burden of proof - Section 10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 1 RAYUAN SIVIL: Tuntutan utama melibatkan Intrabuild Concept Sdn Bhd selaku plaintif dengan defendan, Cova Design & Contract Sdn Bhd untuk mendapatkan baki bayaran bagi kerja-kerja yang dijalankan oleh plaintif berjumlah RM84,255.52 berserta faedah dan kos. Defendan merupakan kontraktor utama bagi projek Cadangan Pemajuan 3 Blok Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan (1,843 unit) yang mengandungi 3 blok pangsapuri perkhidmatan terdiri daripada Blok A (587 unit), Blok B 28 tingkat (725 unit), Blok C 28 tingkat (531 unit), Blok 1 Tingkat Kemudahan dan 7 Tingkat Podium Tempat Letak Kereta dan 2 tingkat sub-basement berserta kemudahan berkaitan di atas Lot PTD 25671 (sebahagian Lot Asal 64369) Jalan Sagu 36, Taman Daya, Mukim Terbau, Daerah Johor Bahru, Johor untuk Tetuan Casa Andaman Sdn Bhd. Defendan melantik plaintif sebagai sub-kontraktor bagi kerja-kerja pemasangan perabot yang dinyatakan dalam Surat Pelantikan Pertama bertarikh 12.2.2019. Kerja-kerja telah diselesaikan oleh plaintif dan invois-invois dikeluarkan bagi menuntut fi kontrak berbaki RM335,638.80 yang merangkumi Tuntutan Progres No. 13 bagi RM222,339.75 bertarikh 18.4.2020, Tuntutan Progres Akhir RM35,564.25 bertarikh 15.6.2020 dan Tuntutan Akhir bagi pelepasan tahanan bertarikh 11.9.2020 berjumlah RM77,734.80. Bagi melunaskan invois-invois tersebut, defendan memberikan 6 cek tertunda kepada plaintif. Kesemua cek tersebut berjaya ditunaikan oleh plaintif kecuali cek kelima dan keenam berjumlah RM94,255.52 yang dikembalikan oleh pihak bank dengan catatan Payment Stopped/ Payment Countermanded (Technical). Defendan selanjutnya membayar RM10,000 kepada plaintif melalui cek No. 863646 bertarikh 28.5.2021 sebagai pembayaran sebahagian untuk cek kelima. Namun defendan gagal menjelaskan baki RM84,255.52 kepada plaintif sehingga menyebabkan plaintif memfailkan tuntutan di Mahkamah. Defendan memasukkan tuntutan balas yang antara lain memplidkan selain daripada fi kontrak yang dipersetujui dalam Surat Pelantikan Kedua, kerja-kerja hendaklah disiapkan oleh plaintif tertakluk kepada syarat bahawa pada atau sebelum 15.3.2020 bagi Tingkat 7 sehingga Tingkat 15 (152 unit); dan pada atau sebelum 5.2.2020 bagi Unit khas No. C-07-01, C-0709, C-07-15, C-08-19, C-09-06, C-09-12, C-10-15; C-12-15 dan C-14-07. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KONTRAK: Sama ada berlaku kelewatan oleh plaintif dalam menyiapkan Unit-unit Biasa dan sama ada defendan berhak menuntut LAD terhadap plaintif – Sama ada defendan berhak kepada tuntutan kos pembaikan kecacatan kerja-kerja plaintif – Sama ada defendan berhak terhadap gantirugi akibat dakwaan keberhutangan dalam rekod CTOS – s.74(1) dan s.75 Akta Kontrak 1950. 1 1. To a lay observer, the present dispute may appear to present a scenario where the borrower not only retains the benefit of the loan but also seeks to profit from it, a situation akin to having the cake, eating it, and being paid for doing so. 1 2. However, public perception or appearances notwithstanding, this Court is duty-bound to determine the present appeal strictly in accordance with the applicable legal framework, namely, the Moneylenders Act 1951, if applicable, and the relevant case law authorities. 1 3. The essential issues for consideration in this appeal are: 1 (a) Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to recover the loan that she had given to the Respondents/Defendants; 1 (b) Whether the Respondents/Defendants are entitled to recover a sum of money that they have paid thus far as interest on the said loan from the Appellant/Plaintiff; and 1 (c) These questions turn on the issue of whether the Moneylenders Act 1951 apply to the present appeal. 1 This is an appeal by Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad, the Appellant (the Plaintiff below) against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (“SCJ”) dismissing its claim against the Respondent (the Defendant below) under an Education Sponsorship Agreement dated 19.12.2011 (“the Agreement”). For consistency, the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court. 1 Appeal after full trial - Claim for late payment interest - Dismissed on the grounds of waiver and estoppel - Defence was not pleaded - Whether court can consider ground of appeal that was not stated in the Memorandum of Appeal - Whether Plaintiff entitled to recover the late payment interest - Whether late payment interest was excessive for exceeding the rate provided for in the Moneylenders Act 1951 - Whether the late payment interest claim was an afterthought 1 Ini adalah rayuan Perayu terhadap keputusan dan perintah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS) yang menolak tuntutan Perayu selepas perbicaraan penuh. Wujud suatu perjanjian pinjaman yang mengikat antara Perayu dan Responden, bahawa Responden telah menerima sejumlah wang di bawah perjanjian tersebut, dan bahawa Responden telah gagal melunaskan bayaran balik sepenuhnya, sekali gus telah mungkir obligasinya. rayuan ini adalah bermerit dan dengan ini dibenarkan dengan kos. 1 Appeal after full trial – Tort – Negligence – Property damage – Damage of underground optical fibre cables owned by the Plaintiff – Duty of care – Allegation on the absence of external cable marker to alert the presence of underground cables – Foreseeability – Sufficient proximity between parties – Public policy considerations – Breach of duty – Third party proceeding – Whether third party is the principal’s agent or independent contractor – Principal-agent relationship – The principal vicariously liable – Third party indemnity – Absence of indemnity clause in the contract – Contributory negligence – Whether it was pleaded – The Plaintiff found to be contributorily negligent – Damages – Measure of damages – Proof of damage – Special damages – Onus of proof lies with the one who claimed – Whether self-serving documents sufficient to prove damages 1 Appeal after full trial – Claim for repayment of friendly loan – Friendly loan agreement – Remittances of Funds - Pleaded defence inconsistent with evidence adduced at the trial - Authenticity of the Agreement - Allegation of forged signature – Burden of proof - Onus of proof on Defendant to prove that the signature is forged - Sections 45, 67, 73, 101, 102, 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 1 KONTRAK: Rayuan dari Mahkamah Rendah − Perjanjian pekerjaan dan surat-surat akujanji − Sama ada Plaintif (majikan) berhak dan layak menuntut semula advance commission yang telah dibayar kepada Defendan? − Sama ada syarat yang dikenakan oleh majikan kepada pekerja adalah suatu niat jahat; budi bicara telah dilaksanakan secara tidak munasabah, sewenang-wenangnya dan secara melulu (unreasonably, arbitrary and capriciously)? − Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen khilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang yang membenarkan tuntutann dan menolak tuntutan balas? 1 CATCHWORD WIRAFOAM BA-12BNCvC-25-05/2024 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal from lower court after full trial – Whether the Session Court Judge has misdirected in appreciating the evidence – Whether appellate intervention is warranted – Appeal allowed. EVIDENCE: Evidence Act 1950 - Section 101, Section 102, Section 114(g) – Burden of proof – Balance of Probabilities – Adverse Inference for Withholding Evidence. CONTRACTS: Contracts Act 1950 – Section 2(a), Section 2(b) – Existence of Valid Contract – Absence of Documentary Evidence. 1 This is an appeal by the Appellant, Ali Said Hamdan Al Rawahi, against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) dated 10 May 2024, which dismissed the Appellant’s claim against the Respondent, Ahmad bin Hassan, following a full trial. 1 Appeal after full trial – Agreement for sale of property - Whether there was a concluded sale and purchase agreement - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance - Specific enforcement of the conditional SPA – Counterclaim - Whether the Plaintiff is liable to double rental and delivery of vacant possession 1 Civil appeal after full trial – Issue on reinstatement costs – Whether there is an agreement by estoppel - Expert opinion report not tendered pursuant to Order 40A Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 - What was reasonably reflective of the true reinstatement costs - Relative cogency of available evidence - Balance of probabilities 1 Appeal – classification of document Order 34 Rule 2(2) - fraudulent misrepresentation - the Plaintiffs have proven the existence of fraudulent misrepresentation, and it is now, therefore, on the Defendant's shoulders to prove otherwise – appeal dismissed. 1 Appeal after full trial – Contract – Breach of Employment Arrangement Contract – Words and Phrases – Contractual interpretation – The actual definition of “Floral Design Training Course” – Construction of terms which consistent with business common sense – Whether the alleged training worth the compensation amount – Whether the compensation amount was unreasonable, exorbitant, unconscionable and/or disproportionate – Consideration on legitimate interest and proportionality in determining reasonable compensation – Recoverable liquidated damages – Section 75 of Contracts Act 1950 – Appeal allowed in part – The trial Judge’s decision set aside – Appellate intervention warranted when the trial judge is plainly wrong 1 Ini merupakan rayuan oleh Perayu (Plaintif di Mahkamah Sesyen) terhadap keputusan oleh Mahkmah Sesyen yang menolak tuntutan Perayu/Plaintif terhadap Responden (Defendan di Mahkamah Sesyen) dengan kos mengikut skala selepas perbicaraan penuh. 1 Responden/Defendan merupakan kakitangan syarikat Perayu/Plaintif yang memegang jawatan sebagai Pengurus Besar sehingga beliau meletak jawatan di syarikat Perayu/Plaintif bermula pada bulan Mei 2018. 1 Tuntutan Perayu/Plaintif di Mahkamah Sesyen adalah seperti berikut: a) Ganti rugi khas sebanyak RM 311,660.45, yakni, bomus terlebih bayar dan kehilangan tuntutan; 1 b) Caj bayaran lewat pada kadar RM500.00 sebulan keatas jumlah RM311,660.45 dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga penyelesaian penuh hutang penghakiman; c) Ganti rugi am sepertimana yang ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah ini; d) Pengindorsan dibawah Aturan 45 kaedah 5 & 7 Kaeedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 sekiranya Responden/Defendan gagal mematuhi penghakiman atau perintah mahkamah; e) Kos tindakkan ditanggung oleh Responden/Defendan; dan f) Apa-apa relif lanjut yang Mahkamah ini fikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat. 1 Appeal – Public Utilities – Proof of meter tampering – Admissibility of Part B documents without maker being called to testify - Section 73A of the Evidence Act 1950 - Proof of revenue loss – Statutory presumption under Section 38(4) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 – Rebuttal evidence – No certificate of calibration for the Ammeter used – Backcharge is unjustified and unfair 1 This appeal arises from a suit initiated by a former employer (the Plaintiff) against its former employee (the Defendant). Notably, the case does not concern embezzlement of funds, misappropriation of confidential information, or the diversion of business opportunities. 1 Instead, the claim is grounded in an alleged breach of the duty of fidelity, with the crux of the Plaintiff’s complaint being the Defendant’s deletion of 9,245 files from a company-issued laptop prior to his departure. This raises the question of whether this act was an expression of vindictiveness or, as the Defendant maintained, a justified course of action. 1 Regardless of the Defendant’s motive, the principal issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff has, on a balance of probabilities established that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to a breach of duty. 1 The learned Sessions Court Judge found in favour of the Defendant. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Plaintiff now brings this appeal. 1 1. This case concerns a dispute between a purchaser and a developer. They had entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement for the purchase of a double-storey house in Rawang. 1 2. After the developer obtained the requisite Certificate of Completion and Compliance, it duly issued a Notice to the purchaser to take vacant possession of the property. However, due to an inadvertent mix-up of addresses, the keys to the purchaser’s house were mistakenly handed over to a contractor tasked with renovation works intended for a different property. The purchaser was thus shocked to discover their house in a state of renovation, rendering it uninhabitable. 1 2. This led the purchaser into filing a claim against the developer in the Sessions Court claiming that vacant possession has not been delivered and thus she was entitled to liquidated damages and for damages for loss of use of the house (loss of rental). 1 3. The developer sought a declaration by way of a counterclaim that vacant possession was delivered on 26 February, 2020. 1 KONTRAK: Rayuan dari Mahkamah Rendah − Hal pengubahsuaian rumah − Sama ada wujud kekeliruan pemahaman dan dapatan fakta oleh Tn HMS mengenai dapatan bahawa Perayu-Perayu/Defendan-Defendan adalah bertanggungan untuk membayar hutang tersebut iaitu sebanyak RM116,280.00 − Responden/Plaintif telah melaksanakan kerja pengubahsuaian/pembaikan maka bayaran perlu dibuat − Tiada penafian bahawa kerja − Dapatan undang-undang Tuan HMS adalah selari dengan Seksyen 101 sehingga 103 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 CONTRACT — Contract rescinded due to fraudulent misrepresentation of defendant — Defendant's degree lacked recognition and legitimacy — Whether defendant fraudulently misrepresented his qualifications, thereby inducing plaintiff to enter the employment contract — Whether defendant knowingly or recklessly made a false representation — Whether contract lawfully rescinded by plaintiff — Whether contract void ab initio for fraudulent misrepresentation — Whether plaintiff entitled to recover all salaries and payments made to defendant during his period of employment — Contracts Act 1950, ss 10, 14, 17, 18, 19 1 CONTRACT — Breach of contract — Whether plaintiff’s unilateral waiver of the notice period without compensation constituted a breach of contract — Whether defendant entitled to claim three months’ salary in lieu of notice 1 EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Witnesses — Failure to call makers of emails to prove their contents — Whether presumption of adverse inference should be invoked for failing to call material witnesses — Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g) 1 TRIAL — Whether trial judge misdirected herself by favouring defendant’s oral testimony over plaintiff's documentary material — Whether appellate intervention necessary 1 CATCHWORD BA-12BNCVC-61-09/2024 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal from lower court – Whether the Sessions Court Judge had erred in determining that the Plaintiff has failed to prove its case – Whether High Court intervention is warranted-Appeal dismissed. 1 ELECTRIC SUPPLY ACT 1990: Section 37 (1), (3), (14) – Proving electric meter tampering – Foreign wiring found outside of the premise -Claim for loss of revenue. 1 Appeal – Meter tampering liability – Failure to change account holder name – Breach of obligation to do so in sale and purchase agreement - Whether vendor has the right of indemnity from purchaser to TNB claim for unrecorded electricity after completion of sale – Implied indemnity 1 Ini adalah rayuan Defendan (Perayu) terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS) yang telah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif bagi tunggakan bil elektrik berjumlah RM436,789.36 beserta faedah dan kos. Rayuan oleh Perayu dengan ini ditolak. Keputusan HMS yang membenarkan tuntutan Tenaga Nasional Berhad sebanyak RM436,789.36 beserta faedah adalah dikekalkan. Kos rayuan ini ditetapkan sebanyak RM5,000 1 This is an appeal arising from a dispute over a differential sum allegedly payable under a sale and purchase agreement involving twelve units of properties. The Appellant/Defendant contended that the parties shared a close personal relationship at the material time, within which there arose an oral understanding that the differential sum would be waived. The Respondent/Plaintiff rejected this claim, insisting that no such agreement was reached and that the written terms of the contract are clear, binding, and enforceable. The Sessions Court accepted the Respondent/Plaintiff’s position and entered judgment in its favour after full trial. The Appellant now challenges that decision, alleging errors of both law and fact. 1 The overriding issue is whether the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in its Amended Statement of Claim and for this appeal to be dismissed. 1 Sale and Purchase Agreement - Location of car park different from the agreement - Contractual obligatons of the Developer to allocate the car park to its intended location - Schedules from an integral part of the agreement - Specific performance to reallocate to car park. 1 Appeal against Sessions Court judgment after trial – Sessions Court allowed respondent’s claim for appellant’s breach of contract of a study leave agreement – Whether appellant is obliged to serve respondent during a specified bond period – Whether appellant is required to pay liquidated damages for breach of the bond in the event of his resignation within a particular period – Section 5 of the Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976 – Contra proferentem rule. 1 Rayuan - tuntutan kerugian hasil oleh TNB atas dakwaan usikan pada meter - tuntutan balas Defendan dibicarakan - TNB menarik balik tuntutan kerugian hasil - penghakiman ingkar dimasukkan - Defendan tanda tangan surat akuan liabiliti untuk bayar 18 kali ansuran - penghakiman ingkar kemudian diketepikan - surat akuan liabiliti tidak lagi beri kesan - TNB perlu tunjukkan ada usikan pada meter sebelum boleh tuntut kerugian hasil - rayuan dibenarkan. 1 Kes Rujukan Tanah. Pemohon membantah awad Responden atas kecukupan pampasan untuk nilai tanah, kesan mudarat dan kos sampingan. Pemohon mengemukakan perbandingan yang butirannya tidak dapat ditentukan dan oleh yang demikian perbandingan tersebut telah diabaikan. 1 Bantahan kepada awad Responden yang menetapkan pampasan untuk nilai tanah pada kadar RM2,280.00 semeter persegi (smp) dan kos pembangunan dalam jumlah RM651,171.00. 1 Pemohon membantah pada awad untuk nilai tanah yang tidak mengambilkira plot ratio pada kadar 1:8. Mahkamah tidak menerima hujahan tersebut kerana plot ratio kerana mengikut pelan permohonan kebenaran merancang no. lukisan B343/MPS/KM/SP/01 Pemohon bertarikh September 2020, plot ratio pembangunan yang dicadangkan hanya 1:5. 1 Land Reference; section 38 of Land Acquisition Act 1960. 1 Whether building on acquired land which are in contravention of the express condition and category of land use are entitled to compensation under paragraph 3A of the First Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 1 Section 3 LAA 1960, Section 43 LAA 1960, Definition of person or corporation as interested parties - role of Land Administrator - who whether payor in whose favour land was acquired is entitled to intervene in a land reference proceedings. 1 Land reference proceedings pursuant to Land Acquisition Act 1960. Concessionaire sought to reduce to increase the Land Administrator's compensation, subsection 115(4) of the National Land Code 1965 classification of agricultural land. 1 Land Acquisition Act 1960. Paymaster/ concessionaire sought to reduce the award of the Land Administrator whilst persons interested sought to increase the award of the Land Administrator by way of land reference. Court maintained award of the Land Administrator. The paymaster/concessionaire appealed. S 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 no appeal from an award of compensation. 1 Land Reference. The concessionaire/ paymaster filed Form N to challenge the award of the Land Administrator for market value, buildings and structures, severance and incidental costs. 1 Land Reference - Section 38(2) LAA 1960 - Section 38(3) LAA 1960 - the word "shall" - whether to be construed as mandatory or directory - Section 38(5) LAA 1960 - jurisdiction of Court. 1 Land Reference - locus standi - entitlement for compensation, loss of profits/development costs - Validity of planning permission - Section 9A LAA - documents/evidence in precious proceedings whether can be used. 1 Enclosure 20 was the Applicant’s application to amend their Form N dated 3.7.2023 by including new grounds of objection. Applicant failed to show sufficient reasons as there was inordinate delay. 1 Kes rujukan tanah. Pemohon membantah kepada kecukupan awad Responden untuk nilai tanah, pecah pisah, kesan mudarat dan kos sampingan Mahkamah membenarkan peningkatan nilai tanah dan mengarahkan bayaran pampasan tambahan untuk nilai tanah dan pecah pisah. Tuntutan untuk kesan mudarat dan kos sampingan ditolak. 1 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 - Penilai Pemohon tidak membuat pelarasan terhadap perbandingan sama ada satu kes prima facie telah terbukti. Lihat perenggan 2 (1), Jadual Ketiga Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. 1 Land Acquisition Act 1960. Land reference proceedings involving partial acquisition. Land references were consolidated. The concessionaire seeks to reduce the Land Administrator's Award, the Landowner seeks to increase the Land Administrator's Award. 1 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. Rujukan Tanah. Bantahan terhadap awad Pentadbir Tanah yang tiada keseragaman nilaian tanah terhadap lot-lot banglo di Ambang Suria. 1 This is an appeal against the decision of the Social Security Appellate Board (SSAB) dated 29.11.2024 wherein they allowed the Respondent's appeal for temporary disablement benefits. The Respondent suffered a sports injury when he took part in a futsal competition organised by the employer. Issue was whether that injury was an employment injury. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja bertarikh 20.2.2024 yang mengarahkan Perayu membayar RM3,485.85 bagi baki gaji bulan Oktober 2023. Perayu tidak berhak membuat potongan gaji selain dibenarkan oleh Responden atau dengan kebenaran terdahulu KPTR. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja bertarikh 26.2.2025 yang mengarahkan Perayu membayar Responden RM2,753.55 bagi gaji tanpa notis. Mahkamah mendapati tiada apa-apa kekhilafan di pihak KPTR yang memutuskan Responden layak menerima gaji ganti notis. 1 Rayuan daripada keputusan 'Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja' sama ada Perayu-perayu layak untuk gaji. Subseksyen 15(2) dan 13(2) Akta Kerja 1955. 1 Appeal against the Director General of Manpower’s decision dated 8.5.2024 wherein she allowed the Respondent’s claim for termination benefits and arrears petrol allowance and commission. There was fundamental breach of the employment contract when the Appellant failed to pay the full salary and the allowances. 1 Appeal from the Labour Court. Issue of unilateral deduction of productivity allowance of employees who are both pilots. Subsection 24(1) of the Employment Act 1955. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja bertarikh 24.5.2024 berkenaan kiraan faedah penamatan pekerja dan kesan pindaan kepada Jadual Pertama Akta Kerja 1955 (Akta 265) yang berkuatkuasa mulai 1.1.2023 ke atas kiraan tersebut. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja bertarikh 18.4.2024 yang telah membenarkan tuntutan Responden untuk faedah pemberhentian. Mahkamah mendapati Responden-Responden telah dihentikan oleh Perayu dan bukannya suatu pemberhentian sukarela. Dalam keadaan ini Responden-Responden berhak mendapat faedah pemberhentian. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja bertarikh 17.7.2024 yang membenarkan tuntutan Responden untuk faedah penamatan. Perayu mempertikaikan Responden seorang pekerja kerana – (i) tiada kontrak perkhidmatan; dan (ii) tiada bukti berkenaan waktu kerja harian Responden. Fakta kes menunjukkan Responden pekerja Perayu. 1 Ini adalah rayuan Perayu terhadap keputusan Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Sosial (JRKS) bertarikh 6.12.2024 yang menolak permohonan Perayu untuk pencen keilatan, Rayuan tidak kompeten sebab dibuat di luar tempoh yang ditetapkan di bawah seksyen 91 Akta 4. Rayuan tiada merit kerana permohonan untuk pencen keilatan dibuat selepas Perayu berumur 60 tahun. 1 Lampiran 4 adalah permohonan Perayu untuk lanjutan masa memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja bertarikh 8.5.2025. Perayu gagal mengemukakan sebarang alasan munasabah untuk kelewatan 4 hari. 1 Appeal from the decision of the Labour Court. Issue of whether the Respondents are employees of the Appellant or whether the Respondents were volunteers. 1 This is an appeal against the decision of Director General of Manpower (DGM) dated 19.8.2024 which allowed the Respondent’s claim in the sum of RM21,266.79. 1 The Court is hard pressed to find the just cause for the immediate termination. The Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof of showing misconduct that justified the termination. 1 Appeal against the decision of the Director General of Manpower dated 12.9.2024 who allowed the Respondent's claim for termination benefits and salary. Although the Respondent was terminated she was not entitled to any termination benefits as she had passed the minimum retirement age. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan KPTR bt 21.8.2024 yang membenarkan tuntutan Responden untuk elaun bersalin di bawah seksyen 37(1) (a) Akta Kerja 1955. Isu berkenaan tempoh notis berhenti kerja dan misconduct di pihak Responden tiada merit. 1 Appeal against the decision of the Director General of Labour dated 20.9.2024 who dismissed the Appellant's claim for wages. Appellant maintained he was the Respondent's employee based on the work permit taken out by the Respondent. He admitted to not working at all and claimed salary for 2 years. Respondent, a construction company admitted taking out the work permit but said it was for a fee. They were in the midst of applying for the permit the second time around when the Appellant lodged the complaint against them. 1 Appeal against the decision of the DG Manpower dated 23.10.2024 who dismissed the Appellant's claim for unpaid wages. The DG found that the Appellant was not an employee 1 Appeal against the decision of the Director General of Manpower dated 8.12.2023 who allowed the Respondent's claim for arrears salary and salary in lieu of notice. The issue of whether the Respondent is an employee is a question of fact. From the facts of this appeal, the Respondent was an employee. 1 Appeal against Social Security Appellant Board's decision dated 23.11.2023 which dismissed the Appellant's claim for invalidity pension. The medical board and appellate medical board had already decided that the Appellant does not qualify for the pension. The SSAB does not have the jurisdiction to review the medical board and/or the appellate medical board's decision. 1 Appeal against the decision of the Assistant Director of Manpower dated 27.11.2024 who dismissed the Appellant's claim for salary. He maintained he was suspended, not terminated. The Respondent contended that he was absent from work for 2 days and therefore had abandoned his employment. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan KPTR bertarikh 6.12.2024 yang membenarkan tuntutan Responden untuk gaji tanpa notis pemberhentian. Tindakan Responden yang mengingkari arahan pengurusan dan gagal melaksanakan tugasan sebagai Shadow Aide menjejaskan nama baik Perayu di kalangan ibu bapa dan pihak ketiga lain. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Social yang mengtakrifkan kecederaan yang dialami Responden suatu bencana kerja. Kecederaan itu tidak menepati elemen-elemen yang dihuraikan dalam takrifan bencana kerja. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Pengerusi Mahkamah Perusahaan bt 27.6.2024 yang Responden telah ditamatkan perkhidmatannya secara tidak sah dan mengawadkan back wages untuk tempoh 12 bulan. Rayuan tidak berasas. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja bertarikh 1.10.2024 yang membenarkan tuntutan Responden untuk faedah penamatan kerja. Kegagalan pekerja menepati prestasi kerja yang memuaskan adalah suatu salahlaku dan pekerja boleh dihentikan serta merta tanpa notis 1 TAXATION OF BILL OF COSTS: preparation of Bill of Costs - purpose of taxation - comment and remark of paying party - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 132 1 TAXATION OF BILL OF COSTS: affidavit evidence - consideration of relevant evidence - discretion of taxing officer and exclusion - documents filed in Court's e-Filing system - minutes of relevant cases in Court's e-Filing system 1 TAXATION OF BILL OF COSTS: affidavit evidence - failure to prepare affidavit despite Court's instruction - failure to file Notice of Intention to use Affidavit 1 GETTING UPS: getting ups of each works stated in one lump sum under heading "Getting Up (A)" - whether reference to written submissions allowed - whether invoices previously prepared prior to obtaining order for taxation still relevant - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 121(c) 1 TAXATION OF BILL OF COSTS - applicable principles - Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, r. 11 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 59, r. 16(1) - Rules of Court 2012, O. 59, r. 17(2) - quantum - principle 1 GETTING UPS: considerations - application of Letter of Administration - running down cases - market rate - conduct of solicitors toward the case - importance of matter to client 1 GETTING UPS: approach to taxation - based on knowledge of market rate - based on estimate damages that the client will obtain - based on estimate costs if costs on party-to-party basis is assessed - based on percentage of total judgement sum - Legal Profession Conditional Fee (Personal Injury) Rules - proposal 1 GETTING UPS: other considerations - entitlement of solicitors - entitlement to incur fee in respect of each and every matter - entitlement in event discharged in the eleventh hour - difference between preparation for oral submissions and the actual oral submissions - necessity of using the service of senior counsel in preparation of appeal when the full trial was conducted by a senior associate of the same firm 1 OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES: failure to adduce supporting receipts and documentations - presumed bona fide - onus of rebutting the presumption - effect of failure to rebut - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 124(3) 1 INTERESTS: Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 133 - whether financed - client did not enjoy the benefit - moneys retained with solicitors as stakeholder pending outcome of appeal - whether entitled to impose interest 1 Application for leave to seek recovery of legal fees. The Plaintiff's claim was supported by documents whereas the First Defendant's denial was unsubstantiated. The 2nd Defendant did not appoint the Plaintiff to act for her. 1 Plaintif telah berkhidmat sebagai seorang Pegawai Perubatan dengan Defendan dari 2007 sehingga 2015, apabila Plaintif telah meletakkan jawatannya atas alasan peribadi. Untuk tujuan “Mengemaskini Pencantuman Perkhidmatan”, majikan baru Plaintif telah menghubungi Defendan dan memaklumkan kepada Defendan bahawa Plaintif telah dilantik dan telah mula berkhidmat dengan pihak majikan baru tersebut dan memohon untuk diberikan satu salinan Buku Perkhidmatan Plaintif. Kedua majikan baru Plaintif serta Plaintif telah dimaklumkan oleh Defendan bahawa fail peribadi serta Buku Perkhidmatan Plaintiff telah dilupuskan oleh Defendan. 1 Atas ketidakpuasan Plaintif terhadap tindakan Defendan untuk melupuskan Buku Perkhidmatannya, Plaintiff telah memulakan tindakan sivil ini berdasarkan kausa tindakan kecuaian oleh pihak Defendan dalam mengendalikan dan melupuskan Buku Perkhidmatannya. 1 TORT - malicious prosecution - prosecutorial authority - no unfettered discretion - no basis for immunity from private action - elements of the tort of malicious prosecution - presumption of legality and deference - malice as a separate element - Article 145(3) Federal Constitution 1 Deceased committed suicide whilst in custody-arrested by officers of the Maritime Enforcement Agency-detained for investigation under s.39B of the DDA-was provided with an extra pair of pants-deceased used it to hang from a grill in the ceiling-cctv monitoring did not notice anything untoward-the Defendants were sued by the co-administrators of the estate and dependents for negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office-whether a duty of care exists as the harm was not foreseeable-the plaintiffs failure to plead the law upon which the duty was premised-whether there was evidence of the ingredients of the public misfeasance-whether the evidence on the loss of earnings in a dependency claim was cogent 1 KECUAIAN PERUBATAN: Kemalangan motorsikal menyebabkan plaintif mengalami kecederaan bilateral 1st and 2nd ribs fracture with right focal pneumothorax dan perlu segera dibedah. Plaintif menjalani dua pembedahan dan pembedahan kedua adalah muktamad untuk merawat kepatahan. Selepas pembedahan kedua, berlaku kegagalan aliran darah pada salur darah kaki kanan plaintif sehingga menyebabkan jari-jari kaki kanan plaintif tidak dapat digerakkan dan mengakibatkan kaki kanan plaintif dipotong - Sama ada wujud kecuaian perubatan akibat perlakuan defendan-defendan berkaitan pembedahan kedua plaintif - Sama ada defendan-defendan cuai dalam menjelaskan risiko pembedahan termasuk gangguan saluran darah dan berisiko menyebabkan kaki dipotong - Sama ada defendan pertama, kedua dan ketiga bertanggungan secara alih terhadap kecuaian defendan keempat hingga kesepuluh jika didapati mereka bertanggungan cuai terhadap plaintif - Sama ada plaintif membuktikan relief ganti rugi yang dituntut. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti – Seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950 1 [1] Ini merupakan permohonan oleh Plaintif di dalam Lampiran 8 untuk kebenaran memasukkan Penghakiman Terus dalam tindakan ini terhadap Defendan bagi jumlah RM17,129,924.57, iaitu amaun yang diindorskan pada Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan dengan faedah pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh realisasi dan kos. 1 [2] Defendan tidak hadir semasa pendengaran permohonan ini pada 21 Mac, 2025. 1 [3] Namun demikian, untuk bertindak adil terhadap Defendan, Mahkamah telah meneliti serta mengambil kira hujahan yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan dalam Afidavit Balasan Defendan bertarikh 13 Disember, 2024 (di dalam Lampiran 10) serta Hujahan Bertulis Defendan bersama Ikatan Autoriti Defendan (di dalam Lampiran 16 dan Lampiran 17) sebelum memutuskan untuk membenarkan permohonan Plaintif dengan kos sebanyak RM3,000.00 1 [4] Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut, Defendan telah memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan melalui Lampiran 19 terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini yang membenarkan permohonan Plaintif untuk memasukkan penghakiman terus terhadapnya. 1 [5] Berikut adalah alasan penghakiman Mahkamah ini untuk Lampiran 8. 1 Application to intervene - to add a co-plaintiff - medical negligence - applicant is the join administrator of the deceased estate - requested to be represented by his own lawyers - Plaintif objected - possible inconsistent and conflicting interest - application was allowed - proposed invervener has a right to be the second plaintiff - both solicitors should collaborated as a team. 1 -the Defendant had failed to pay the Plaintiff for the works done in the project upon completion. 1 -no evidence produced to this court to show that there has been any dispute or even query raised by the Defendant at any stage of the project or even after the completion of the same to the Plaintiff or to the Project Architect. 1 -the sum owed to the Plaintiff is clearly admitted by the Defendant at that material time 1 -This is a plain case of non-payment of sums owed for works already carried out and completed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s defences raised in this case is nothing more than a mere afterthought and a bare denial. 1 -On the day of trial, the Plaintiff’s Solicitor had appeared in court and had informed in open court that the Plaintiff had terminated them as Solicitors for the Plaintiff the night before. The Plaintiff had not appointed a replacement Solicitor to take over conduct of the matter on the day of the commencement of the trial and neither had written to court regarding the termination. 1 -The Plaintiff had also not sent any representative to court to address this issue and or to request for a postponement of the trial in order to do the needful to carry on with the suit which would include the appointment of a replacement Solicitor 1 - the Defendant made an oral application for the Plaintiff’s case to be struck out and for the Defendant’s counterclaim in the suit to be heard and decided on the trial date 1 This is an application by the Defendant pursuant to Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 to enter final judgment against the Plaintiff in respect of its Counterclaim. 2. It is trite that O14 r 5, Rules of Court 2012 allows the Defendant to seek summary judgment against the Plaintiff on its Counterclaim on the ground that the Plaintiff has no defence. 1 Whether there is a contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant - whether the contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is on a 'back to back' and its extension on a 'pay if paid' basis - whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for its claims based on variation orders - whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the sum of the balance for work done and the other claims. 1 1.Privity of contract-the existence of the Letters of Undertaking issued by the Defendants, there is privity of contract between the Defendants and the parties in the construction contract 1 2. the Defendants have failed to prove their reliance on the conditions raised by them to rebut the Plaintiff’s claim against the Letters of Undertaking 1 3.Plaintiff is not judicially estopped to bring this action against the Defendants. 1 Whether there is a valid and enforceable Arbitration Agreement pursuant to Section 9 AA 2005 -There being no dispute as to whether there is an Arbitration Agreement, the Defendant has established its prima facie case in this case. 1 Whether the Arbitration Agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. - the Final Account is not being challenged but the dispute is on the non-payment of the same. -Since there is no agreement reached by the parties to waive the Arbitration Clause, the dispute arising from the non-payment of the Final Account remains a dispute which is subject to the Arbitration Clause. 1 - Section 37 of the CIPAA 2012 allows arbitration or litigation at the courts be done concurrently with ongoing Adjudication Proceedings. 1 -Whether the Sub-contract between the parties have been revised All that is there is the revised amount which no evidence was produced to court to authenticate the truth of the said document. 1 -Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of RM23,354,170.67 or any other sum for the works carried out by the Plaintiff as per the JMS allow the Plaintiff’s claim of RM23,354,170.67 1 -Whether the Defendant is entitled to impose the backcharges against the Plaintiff. 1 since there are no proof of payment to substantiate the claims made, the Defendant is not entitled for the balance of the backcharges made for patching potholes and compensation claims and safety compounds 1 Sama ada terdapat baki bayaran kepada Plaintif oleh Defendan sebanyak RM1,446,993.12. -ketiadaan sebarang bukti yang menyokong jumlah-jumlah yang dikatakan patut tolak daripada baki bayaran kepada Plaintif termasuk bukti ketidaksiapan kerja-kerja subkontrak, Defendan hendaklah membayar kepada Plaintif jumlah sebanyak RM1,290,002.12 sebagai baki bayaran bagi melaksanakan kerja-kerja subkontrak. -Plaintif telah membuktikan bahawa ia berhak menerima bayaran balik yang berjumlah RM77,251.00 daripada Defendan 1 Sama ada Defendan layak membuat tuntutan balas daripada Plaintif sebanyak RM45,226.68 untuk menyiapkan kerja-kerja Plaintif di bawah kontrak. -Tanpa sebarang bukti yang menyokong tuntutan Defendan bahawa terdapat sebanyak RM45,226.68 yang perlu dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan untuk menyiapkan kerja-kerja Plaintif yang masih tertunggak 1 Application for Summary Judgment- Defendants have no defence to the claim- indebtedness is clearly established on the documentary record- Defendants’ failure to file any Affidavit in Reply amounts to an admission of the facts- Defendants oppose the application- the claim is premature- Plaintiff is estopped from relying on the procedural default because of ongoing settlement negotiations between the parties- filing an Affidavit in Reply was unnecessary- the claim is premature and should be tested at trial with oral evidence- non-filing of the Affidavit is an irregularity under Order 2 rule 1 ROC 2012, not a nullity, and that the Court may cure it in the interest of justice under Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012- For estoppel to arise, there must be a clear and unequivocal representation or course of conduct which the other party relied upon to their detriment-it is unsupported by affidavit- without affidavit support, there is no admissible basis to find that the Plaintiff waived its procedural rights or is estopped from relying on the Defendants’ default-it is a bare assertion- the discretion to cure such non-compliance is exercised upon affidavit evidence explaining the default and showing a defence on the merits- Plaintiff has discharged its burden to show a prima facie case- Defendants, having filed no Affidavit in Reply, have failed to raise any bona fide triable issue on admissible evidence- the Defendants have no defence to the Plaintiff’s claim- the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. 1 Banking—Guarantee and indemnity—Enforcement—Summary judgment—Order 14 Rules of Court 2012—Guarantor’s liability—Joint and several liability for banking facilities—Whether bona fide triable issues raised—Defence alleging duty on bank to monitor borrower’s financial position and to act in guarantor’s interest—Whether such duty existed—Express terms of facility and guarantee negating any supervisory duty—Effect of variations, indulgences and restructuring granted to principal borrower—Purview doctrine—Whether applicable—Alleged delay in realisation of securities—Section 94 Contracts Act 1950—Whether impairment or loss of security established—Mere allegation of delay insufficient—Certificate of Indebtedness—Whether challenge raised with particulars or evidence of manifest error—Bare assertion inadequate—Civil procedure—Striking out—Counterclaim repeating unsustainable defences—Whether discloses reasonable cause of action—Abuse of process—Further and better particulars—Function of particulars confined to material facts—No prejudice shown—Statement of claim sufficient—Summary judgment allowed—Counterclaim struck out—Application for particulars dismissed—Costs of RM20,000 awarded for all three applications. 1 Consolidated suits-1st Suit by credit company-for outstanding sums arising from finance facility-proceeds of contract with FGV assigned to credit company-2nd suit by borrower for damages arising from delay in disbursement of monies to suppliers-delay caused contracts awarded by FGV to be terminated-whether the time frame for payment of disbursement sums stipulated in the financing facility agreement-whether representations made by the officers of credit company prior to facility agreements, to disburse amounts within alleged time frame can be considered-clause on entire agreement-parol evidence rule-whether damages arising from delay proven on the evidence-Certificate of Indebtedness conclusive as to amount outstanding 1 Summary judgment - Islamic financing - Defaulted in repayment of bank facilities – Company was wound up - Guarantee - Guarantors’ liability - Independent guarantee - Whether any of the Defendants’ grounds amount to a bona fide triable issue under Order 14 rule 3 Rules pf Court 2012 – Whether on the evidence the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law - Clause 4 of guarantee - No postponement of liability - No requirement to exhaust securities - Concurrent remedies - Winding-up of principal debtor -Pending appeal irrelevant - Temporary Measures Act 2020 - COVID-19 defence -Statutory protection inapplicable - No triable issue - Bare assertions -Speculative defences - Quantum dispute unsupported - Statement of Account unchallenged - Hypothetical arguments rejected -Commercial certainty - Contractual obligation to pay - Clear and unequivocal guarantee - Order 14 Rules Of Court 2012 1 Preliminary issue: failure to comply with a Consent Order concerning depositing security for costs; Consent Order treated as contract binding on the parties; the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed with no liberty to file afresh if the Consent Order is not complied with; no unilateral variation of the Consent Order; solicitor’s undertaking cannot substitute for compliance; material inordinate delays. 1 Anton Piller Order – ex parte application – inter partes setting-aside – preservation of evidence – digital forensics – deleted files – concealed device – confidential information – trade secrets – client database – pricing structure – logistics operations – employee resignation – competing business – conspiracy – breach of fiduciary duty – misuse of confidential data – data tampering – risk of destruction of evidence – strong prima facie case – urgency – judicial supervision – proportionality – non-oppressive execution – procedural irregularity – curable defect – Order 29 Rules of Court – good faith – material non-disclosure – legal threshold – employment confidentiality – post-employment obligations – business diversion – commercial equity – court discretion – costs in the cause – safeguarding justice – evidence custody – fair trial – fraud prevention – corporate protection. 1 Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Commercial debt — Supply of telecommunications equipment — Unpaid invoices — Clear documentary evidence — Purchase orders, delivery orders and invoices — Defence alleging coercion and additional agreement — No contemporaneous protest or supporting documents — Bare assertions — Afterthought — No bona fide triable issue — Summary judgment allowed — Rules of Court 2012, O.14 Contract — Guarantee — Letter of guarantee — Personal liability of guarantor — Guarantor admitting signature — Defence of misunderstanding and failure to read document — No fraud, misrepresentation or duress — Party bound by document signed — No triable issue — Summary judgment against guarantor — L’Estrange v Graucob applied Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Counterclaim — Striking out — Allegation of commercial conspiracy — Failure to plead essential elements — No agreement, no common design, no overt acts, no particulars of damage — Pleadings vague and speculative — No reasonable cause of action — Frivolous and vexatious — Abuse of process — Counterclaim struck out — Rules of Court 2012, O.18 r.19 Company Law — Separate legal personality — Third parties — Alleged conspirators not party to contract or alleged additional agreement — No factual nexus pleaded — Improper joinder — Counterclaim unsustainable Evidence — Burden of proof — Allegations of coercion and conspiracy — Absence of contemporaneous documents — No protest, complaint or corroborative evidence — Allegations rejected Practice and Procedure — Consolidated determination — Summary judgment and striking-out applications — Efficient disposal — Counterclaim dismissed consequent upon summary judgment 1 Contract - Breach of contract - Failure to deliver Vessel – Whether the delays were caused by the Plaintiff – Changes to the specification of the Vessel - Conducts of parties – Whether time was at large - Counterclaim for outstanding payments for variation works and storage charges – Alleged unpaid invoices - Whether 1st Defendant was entitled to stop construction - Whether 1st Defendant was entitled to sell the partially built Vessel to mitigate losses - Whether there is total failure of consideration - Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the liquidated quantum of damages sought - Assessment of damages - Election of measure of damages - Loss of Profits - Restitution of money paid - Section 74(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory application – Discovery against third party – Recovery of outstanding commissions based on an agreement – Discovery of documents to substantiate claim of outstanding sums as calculated in a software operated by the third party – Whether ingredients for discovery application fulfilled – Specificity of documents – Whether the documents are in possession, custody and control of the third party – Relevance and necessity of the requested documents – Order 24 Rule 7A and/or Rule 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Fraudulent trading – Conspiracy to defraud – Creditor contracted with company for construction projects – Recovery of debts for alleged unpaid claims – Company wound-up – Disposal of vehicles and machines belonging to company – Whether sold for valuable consideration – Transfer of funds out of the company to Defendants – Allegation that funds transferred were repayments and monies owed – Whether these are genuine debts – Transactions effected within six months of presentation of the winding-up petition – Whether there was fraudulent trading to avoid paying debts to creditor – Whether the transactions carried out with the intent to defraud creditor - Section 540 of the Companies Act 2016 REMEDIES: The Defendants personally liable for debt of the company – Claim on certified payments – Claim on uncertified and rejected claims – Whether the alleged debt proven – Whether evidence presented support the quantification of liquidated debt – Certified claims proven but no clear evidence to prove quantum of uncertified and rejected claims – Exemplary damages granted 1 Order 14A moved by Court of its own motion – Pleaded breach of fiduciary duties - Breach of trust and fraud in misappropriation - Whether the parties’ pleaded claims and counterclaims for relief in this action are entirely those that can only be properly advanced by or against the Company - Doctrine on the separate legal personality of a company - Proper plaintiff rule - Rule against reflective loss - No special factual relationship pleaded - No attempt to disguise or displace the Company as the proper plaintiff 1 Recovery of friendly loan – Default in repayment pursuant to Deed of settlement - Monthly payments made- Whether they were payments towards the friendly loan sum - Whether they were dividends payable under the investment agreements entered into around the same time 1 Refund of money paid and agreed compensation for breach of the Business Agreement. Contempt of court not purged - no right to be heard. Evidence not rebutted is presumed to be true. Extension of an interim injunction after the disposal of the civil suit is not allowed - monetary damages have been pleaded, and the Business Agreement has been terminated, rendering any injunction to maintain the status quo of the parties under the Business Agreement unnecessary. 1 JAMINAN KOS: Kuasa budibicara Mahkamah perlu mengambil kira semua hal keadaan dan fakta kes − Sama ada tuntutan Plaintif adalah bona fide? − Sama ada Plaintif mempunyai prospek baik secara munasabahnya untuk berjaya dalam tuntutan? − Plaintif Ketiga (warganegara Perancis) dan 2 lagi Plaintif adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa mereka ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction of the court − Fakta ini adalah benar dan bukannya andaian. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Penghakiman terus di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Sama ada baki bayaran tertunggak bagi “goods and services rendered” berjaya dibuktikan? – Sama ada keterangan afidavit yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua pihak adalah mencukupi untuk Mahkamah memutuskan suatu penghakiman muktamad? – Sama ada isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan-Defendan perlu diadakan dengan cara mendengar keterangan saksi? 1 Striking out – Whether fraudulent trading – Section 540 of the Companies Act 2016 – Whether claim is time barred – Whether limitation period is postponed by fraud – Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1953 – Whether the company secretary (7th Defendant) assisted in the alleged fraud arising from preparation of the resolutions for declaration of dividend and change of directors – Whether the auditor (6th Defendant) assisted in the alleged fraud arising from audit of the financial statements – Whether unjust enrichment. 1 This is an application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 12 for Summary Judgment. 1 As the Defendant has not raised any preliminary objections in relation to the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 12, the essential issue is purely one of whether the Defendant is able to satisfy this Court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or there ought for some other reason to be a trial of the Plaintiff’s claim within the meaning of Order 14 rule 3 of the Rule of Court 2012. 1 Breach of a Letter of Guarantee - Whether the Letter of Guarantee dated 12 February 2020 was duly executed by the Defendants and is valid and binding on them - Whether the Certificate of Indebtedness dated 11 December 2023 constitutes conclusive proof of the amount due - I find that the Letter of Guarantee was duly executed and therefore existed, was valid, and binding on the Defendants according to its express terms. The Defendants did not adduce cogent evidence to rebut the Plaintiff’s case on execution. A bare denial is insufficient - a certificate of indebtedness issued after the commencement of proceedings cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive evidence of the amount due in this case - Plaintiff’s claim against both Defendants is allowed. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Pindaan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan –Plaintif hanya mengetahui maklumat pembubaran syarikat Defendan Pertama (D1) pada 3-9-2024 − Tuntutan difailkan selepas pembubaran syarikat D1 − Permohonan pindaan dibuat hanya selepas membaca afidavit Defendan-Defendan sedangkan Plaintif “mahir” mengenai fakta sejak Guaman terdahulu − Prinsip undang-undang dalam kes Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd v. Yamaha (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors − Sama ada Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa permohonan pindaan dibuat dengan suci hati (bona fide); sama ada prejudis kepada Defendan-Defendan dapat dipampas dengan wang; dan sama ada pindaan itu suatu tactical manoeuvre. 1 1. At the height of the Covid pandemic, surgical gloves were one of the most sought-after commodities. At that time, the price of surgical gloves was in the region of record highs, driven by unprecedented demand and supply chain disruptions. Today, they are available at a fraction of that cost, with stocks aplenty. With demand outstripping supply during the pandemic, ready stocks were almost non-existent. Ready buyers were aplenty. So too were resellers, agents, scouts, and brokers, sourcing for this prized commodity. Promises were made by suppliers, sellers, or resellers. Many of these promises remain unfulfilled. The Plaintiff in the present case claimed that this is one such case. 1 2. The essential issues in this Suit between the Plaintiff and the six Defendants are as follows: 1 1. Whether the First Defendant breached the contract it had entered into with the Plaintiff; 1 2. Whether the Defendants informed the Plaintiff that they were not the manufacturer of the gloves and that the gloves to be supplied were to be sourced from JHE Management Sdn Bhd; 1 3. Whether the Defendants committed fraud, misrepresentation, and conspiracy to deceive the Plaintiff into believing that there were “ready stocks” and thereby induced the Plaintiff to make full payment for the said gloves; 1 4. Whether the gloves made available to the Plaintiff on the agreed delivery date conformed to the description and quality shown to the Plaintiff on 19 November 2020; 1 5. Whether the Plaintiff was justified in terminating the contract on 25 November 2020; 1 6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding sum of RM550,000.00, which has not been refunded. 1 3. As between the Plaintiff and the Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants, the key issue is whether the said individual Defendants are personally liable for the Plaintiff’s claim. 1 4. As between the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants on one hand, and the Fifth and Sixth Defendants on the other, the essential issue is whether the alleged breach (if established) was contributed to by the Fifth and Sixth Defendants and/or a third party, thereby rendering them liable for the losses suffered by the Plaintiff. 1 Civil Procedure — Interim Injunction — To preserve the shares and its value - Whether there was serious issue to be tried — Whether damages were an adequate remedy — Balance of convenience — Potential harm to company not party to suit – Undertaking as to damages to a non-party who may intervene to enforce 1 This is an application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 10 to enter Summary Judgment against the Defendants pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 The Plaintiff’s claim is premised on an Investment Agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant and a Personal Guarantee provided by the Second Defendant (the director of the First Defendant). 1 As the Defendants have not raised any procedural objections, the principal issue in this summary judgment application is whether the Defendants have raised any issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial of the claim within the meaning of Order 14 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 Civil Procedure - Discovery – Bank account statements – Relevancy of documents - Documents are necessary for disposing fairly of the matter and for saving costs - Order 24 Rules 3, 7 and 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 – striking out– failed to disclose reasonable cause of action, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of Court process – no specific relief sought against the Plaintiff in the original counterclaim – amended counterclaim - claim of unlawful dismissal - S. 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – failure to resort to statutory remedy of the Industrial Relations Act 1967-abuse of court process 1 Summary judgment – Borrower’s default - Admission of debt – Certificate of indebtedness as conclusive proof of debt – Pending foreclosure proceedings - Disputed charges – No notice on variation of interest rate - Estoppel – Amended Statement of Claim not filed within 14 days from the date of order granting leave to amend - Procedural irregularity - No miscarriage of justice - No bona fide triable issues – Order 14 Rule 1 and Order 20 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 O18 R19 - Plaintiff’s pleaded cause of action is fundamentally directed at the alleged failure in the storage and safekeeping of the goods which were destroyed. On the Plaintiff’s own pleadings, this responsibility is attributed to D1- are no pleaded facts alleging fraud, sham, façade, or any other recognised basis to justify lifting the corporate veil. The mere assertion of a single economic unit is insufficient in law and cannot, on its own, found liability against D2 – application allowed. 1 BICARA: Tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan untuk deklarasi berkaitan perjanjian membekal sarung tangan nitrile selain pampasan tidak melebihi RM2,000,000 bagi kerugian dan kerosakan yang dialami – Sama ada tindakan defendan menamatkan perjanjian sebagai tidak sah kerana perjanjian tidak memperuntukkan terma pembatalan – Defendan patut dihalang daripada mengeluarkan notis penggulungan berkanun terhadap plaintif – Tuntutan balas oleh defendan untuk pemulangan wang deposit dibawah perjanjian pembekalan sarung tangan nitrile terhadap plaintif dan pihak ketiga selain gantirugi punitif. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KONTRAK: Sama ada wujud perjanjian mengikat antara pihak-pihak – Sama ada perjanjian pembekalan sarung tangan nitrile antara pihak-pihak telah dibatalkan dan adakah ia mengikat Petrobanq – Sama ada Rhythm Agencies mempunyai kausa tindakan terhadap Asia Victor Sdn Bhd, Kashminder dan Petrobanq – Penerimaan wang deposit tidak dinafikan – Petrobanq selaku principal kepada Asia Victor Sdn Bhd telah menerima wang deposit dan komisen telah dibayar kepada Kashminder – Menilai tujuan dan terma kontrak dan keperluan menilai dokumen kontemporari dan keterangan lisan – Wujud kegagalan membekalkan dokumen pengesahan produk yang dipersetujui untuk dibekalkan – Persetujuan Petrobanq mengembalikan wang deposit – Wang depoit gagal dikembalikan meskipun telah berulang kali dijanjikan - Pelaksanaan kontrak - Seksyen 56(1) Akta Kontrak 1950 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KONTRAK: Hubungan agen dan prinsipal antara Petrobanq dan Asia Victor Sdn Bhd. 1 TORT: Sama ada alegasi pemalsuan dibuktikan – Sama ada tuntutan Rhythm Agencies terhadap Petrobanq adalah pramatang. 1 EKUITI: Sama ada perintah menahan defendan dengan sendirinya, dan/atau melalui pegawainya termasuk Alvin Ling atau ejennya dari mengeluarkan notis penggulungan berkanun; dan/atau menyebabkan petisyen penggulungan diajukan terhadap plaintif – Prinsip ekuiti tidak boleh mengatasi peruntukan undang-undang nyata. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Pembuktian tuntutan pampasan – Halangan meletakkan nilai bagi gantirugi am – Aturan 18 kaedah 12(1A) KKM 2012 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Tiada bayaran fi Mahkamah bagi tuntutan balas Kashminder – Kertas kausa yang hendak difailkan dibayar dengan fi Mahkamah sebagaimana dalam Appendix B - Tuntutan balas yang difailkan tanpa fi Mahkamah bukan sebahagian daripada kertas kausa yang sah - Aturan 91 kaedah 1 KKM 2012 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti – Seksyen 101, 102 dan 103 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 O14 – O20 - After hearing both parties, I find that the proposed amendment was irrelevant to the main cause of action by the Plaintiff. The proposed amendment had strayed too far from the present defence filed. It was as good as a new defence being put forward on irrelevant issues regarding a third entity that is not a party to the Hire Purchase Agreements Defendant's application in enclosure 12 was dismissed with cost - On the application for summary judgment, I agree with Plaintiff that Defendants had failed to show triable issues, and I am satisfied that the requirement of an O14 application is sufficiently proved by Plaintiff for judgment to be recorded as prayed for. 1 Breach of agreement to jointly develop the Defendant’s land-semi-detached factories to be built by the Plaintiff-agreement provide for each party’s entitlement-construction was not commenced notwithstanding requisite approvals obtained-both parties alleging breach on the other’s part-evidence adduced in support of respective contention-credibility and plausibility of evidence supporting allegation of breach-damages resulting from the breach-whether entitled based on the evidence-whether Plaintiff can claim for the factory lots even if it terminated the joint venture agreement. 1 PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Permohonan defendan untuk membatalkan Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 27 Mac 2025 – Plaintif merupakan special purpose vehicle yang ditubuhkan oleh Wegrow Edutainment (M) Sdn Bhd dan KRU Studios Sdn Bhd dengan pemegangan saham 50% masing-masing melalui Perjanjian Pemegang Saham – Plaintif mempunyai empat orang pengarah plaintif dengan dua pengarah dilantik oleh Wegrow dan KRU Studios – Defendan merupakan pengarah plaintif yang mewakili KRU Studios – Pemfailan tuntutan oleh plaintif terhadap defendan dibuat melalui tindakan pengarah urusan yang merupakan wakil pengarah daripada Wegrow dengan tanpa mengikuti terma Perjanjian Pemegang Saham - Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1) (a), (b) dan/atau (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT: Sama ada doctrine of agency of necessity boleh mengatasi peruntukan kontrak dan undang-undang – Tafsiran statut - Derivative proceeding - Seksyen 347, 348 dan 350 Akta Syarikat 2016. 1 Kausa tindakan - melanggar kewajipan fidusiari dan kewajipan berhati-hati dalam melindungi akaun bank Plaintif - bank tidak seharusnya dibebankan dengan kewajipan untuk memantau setiap transaksi yang dibuat mengikut keperluan sistem perbankan – Plaintif telah membenarkan atau mengizinkan maklumat keselamatan perbankannya didedahkan kepada pihak ketiga, khususnya dengan membenarkan nombor telefon pihak ketiga digunakan untuk menerima TAC atau PIN. Ini merupakan satu pendedahan maklumat keselamatan yang disengajakan dan telah membolehkan penipuan berlaku - tuntutan plf ditolak. 1 Civil Trial: The plaintiff's claims against the defendants involve RM835,000.00, alleged as a friendly loan. The defendants acknowledge receiving it but deny that it was a loan. They assert that RM835,000.00 was a brokerage fee owed to the 1st defendant and have filed a counterclaim for RM3,765,000.00 against the plaintiff. Contract: Whether there is a friendly loan contract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant - Whether the RM835,000.00 given by the plaintiff to the defendants constitutes a friendly loan - Whether the sum of RM835,000.00 given by the plaintiff to the defendants is part of brokerage fees for services rendered by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff at the plaintiff’s request - Whether the first defendant is entitled to RM4,600,000.00 as the brokerage fee for selling EQSB’s shares. Evidence: Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950. 1 Is this the case of a benevolent uncle? It might appear so if the Plaintiff's narrative is accepted. However, according to the Defendant, the reality is quite different. 1 This case involves the Plaintiff suing the Defendant for the return of monies which, according to the Plaintiff, were advanced as a friendly loan. The Plaintiff is the Defendant's uncle, but the Defendant disputes the claim, asserting instead that the monies received were utilized for share transactions carried out on the Plaintiff’s instructions. Notably, the Plaintiff has initiated similar claims against the Defendant’s wife and mother. 1 Additionally, the Plaintiff has filed a separate action against the same Defendant, alleging that another loan was given to fund the Defendant's venture into a café business. 1 The present matter relates to an application in Enclosure 47 by the Defendant (in the Main Action) for security for costs. The reliefs sought by the Defendant in Enclosure 47 are as follows: 1 1. The Plaintiff to pay RM250,000.00 as security for costs to the Defendant within 7 days from the date of order; 2. The proceedings to be stayed until the payment of RM250,000.00 is made; 3. The proceedings to be dismissed in the event the Plaintiff fails to pay RM250,000.00; 4. Costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. 1 The key issue in this application is whether this is a proper case for this Court to exercise its discretion to invoke Order 23 of the Rules of Court 2012 and order the Plaintiff to provide security for costs. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT: Pengarah-pengarah syarikat memindahkan wang dari akaun syarikat ke akaun peribadi dan perniagaan pengarah – – Prinsip entiti undang-undang yang berasingan - Sama ada wang syarikat adalah harta amanah yang dipegang oleh pengarah-pengarah atas amanah konstruktif– Tugas dan tanggungjawab pengarah – s.20 dan 213 Akta Syarikat 2016 1 UNDANG-UNDANG DAN EKUITI: Tugas fidusiari - Sama ada tindakan mengeluarkan wang syarikat dan dibayar kepada pengarah tanpa dokumen sokongan terjumlah kepada pemecahan tugas fidusiari – Resolusi syarikat dan Memorandum dan Artikel tidak dikemukakan - Kombinasi ujian subjektif dan objektif mengenalpasti sama ada pengarah telah melaksanakan tugas dengan niat baik bagi kepentingan terbaik syarikat dan menjalankan tugas secara berhati-hati menggunakan kemahiran dan kesungguhan yang berterusan – Sama ada pengarah syarikat telah menggunakan budibicara secara bona fide dengan mengutamakan kepentingan syarikat semasa melaksanakan transaksi pengeluaran wang syarikat - Sama ada keputusan mengeluarkan wang syarikat terjumlah kepada keputusan komersil - Sama ada terdapat frod dan penyalahgunaan wang syarikat oleh pengarah - Sama ada seorang yang bijaksana dengan daya fikir yang tinggi dan jujur yang berada dalam kedudukan pengarah dan berada dalam keadaan kes ini akan dengan munasabah percaya bahawa transaksi pengeluaran wang tersebut adalah untuk kepentingan syarikat. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti – Pengakuan – Fakta yang diakui tidak perlu dibuktikan – s.101, 102, 58 dan 17 Akta Keterangan 1950 1 KONTRAK: Tuntutan gantirugi akibat pemecahan kontrak di bawah Service Agreement bertarikh 15.8.2022 antara lain, plaintif dan defendan saling memperkenalkan pelanggan-pelanggan yang memerlukan perkhidmatan dan pengenalan berkenaan dengan perkhidmatan Trade Services – Sama ada plaintif telah memperkenalkan dan/atau menjalinkan perhubungan defendan dengan bank lain yang mempunyai perhubungan dan/atau akaun secara terus dan/atau RMA secara terus dengan Bank of China dan Citibank USA bagi Trade Service yang ditawarkan oleh defendan kepada PT Natuna Eton Energy di Shanghai – Sama ada invois-invois berjumlah USD750,000.00 dan bagi jumlah RM11,075.00 yang dikeluarkan oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan adalah bagi maksud menjalinkan hubungan Defendan dengan Bank yang mempunyai perhubungan dan/atau akaun secara terus dan/atau RMA secara terus dengan Bank of China dan Citibank USA – Sama ada terdapat apa-apa baki yang perlu dibayar oleh defendan kepada plaintif bagi invois-ionvois tersebut – Sama ada tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan wajar ditolak kerana ketiadaan pendaftaran SST. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti terletak di bahu plaintif untuk membuktikan tuntutan – Seksyen 101 and 103 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 Tuntutan terhadap defendan-defendan untuk mendapatkan semula tunggakan baki Harga Tebusbalik Islamic Redeemable Preference Shares (RPS-i) yang telah ditawarkan oleh defendan pertama melalui Perjanjian Langganan yang dimasuki dengan plaintif-plaintif – Plaintif-plaintif memplidkan wujud konspirasi, penipuan dan penipuan salahnyataan oleh defendan-defendan terhadap plaintif-plaintif – Sama ada defendan-defendan telah dengan sengaja dan berniat jahat enggan dan/atau cuai melaksanakan kewajipan kontraktual di bawah Perjanjian Langganan termasuk membuat bayaran balik Harga Tebus balik kepada plaintif-plaintif – Sama ada defendan-defendan secara bersesama atau berasingan telah berkonspirasi, berkomplot menggunakan defendan pertama bagi melakukan penipuan dan penipuan salahnyataan terhadap plaintif-plaintif – Sama ada tirai perbadanan defendan pertama disingkap bagi membolehkan defendan kedua sehingga defendan ketujuh bertanggungan - Sama ada plaintif pertama dan kedua mempunyai locus standi untuk membawa tuntutan bagi pihak-pihak yang dinamakan dalam Lampiran 1 Writ Saman dan Lampiran 2 dan 3 dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 31 Julai 2023. 1 Undang-Undang Syarikat: Notis Penebusan Awal bertarikh 6 Mei 2022 – Skim pelaburan yang dikendalikan oleh defendan pertama meskipun pada awalnya merupakan pelaburan yang sebenar/ genuine, namun telah tercemar dengan tindakan defendan pertama yang berjanji membuat penebusan awal tanpa mendedahkan keadaan kewangan sebenar defendan pertama – Penebusan saham keutamaan - subseksyen 72(4) Akta Syarikat 2016 (Akta 777) 1 Undang-undang Syarikat: Penyingkapan tirai perbadanan – Adakah penubuhan defendan pertama dengan tujuan menipu plaintif-plaintif – Sama ada defendan-defendan mempunyai kawalan penuh terhadap pengurusan dan perniagaan defendan pertama. 1 Tatacara Sivil: Pliding – Keperluan memperincikan fakta-fakta yang membawa kepada frod dan salahnyataan frod dalam pliding – Pihak-pihak terikat dengan pliding. 1 Tatacara Sivil: Prosiding representasi – Plaintif dan pihak yang diwakili berada dalam anggota kelas yang sama untuk membawa tuntutan terhadap defendan – Wujud perbezaan fakta keadaan tuntutan oleh plaintif pertama dan kedua dalam konteks tempoh langganan plaintif pertama telah pun tamat, manakala tempoh langganan plaintif kedua masih berterusan – Pernyataan Tuntutan hanya mengasingkan penama-penama dalam Lampiran 2 dan 3 mengikut kategori pihak yang telah menerima Perjanjian Langganan dan belum menerima Perjanjian Langganan - Sama ada penipuan atau salahnyataan penipuan yang menjadi kausa tindakan adalah sama ada serupa bagi setiap individu yang disenaraikan - Penyataan Tuntutan tidak memplidkan kategori penama-penama dalam Lampiran 1 sama ada Perjanjian Langganan masih berterusan atau pun telah tamat – Aturan 15 kaedah 12 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012) 1 Undang-undang Keterangan: Beban bukti - seksyen 101, 102 dan 103 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 Breach of Tawarrug agreement - class action by subscribers - a case of an alleged conspiracy, fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation by the Defendants for the purpose of misappropriating the Plaintiffs' fund under the pretence of a Shariah Compliance Investment - EAS and RAB had failed to make payments as scheduled in the terms of the agreements - Merely asserting the company does not progress enough to profit was not the foundation reflected in the agreements as consideration between the parties. Defendants cannot now benefit or take advantage of their own wrong - On the balance of probabilities, I find that Defendants committed fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation against the Plaintiffs, and, from the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that Defendants intended to defraud the Plaintiffs, having full knowledge that no return on the investment would be paid to the Plaintiffs. RAB also failed to establish that any investment effort was made to support their allegations of a promised return on investment as agreed - Plaintiffs' claim was allowed in part. 1 This case concerns a transaction for the sale and purchase of a property at an agreed price, negotiated through a property agent. The parties had agreed to sell the property at a specific sum and that a deposit was paid pursuant to that agreement. The Defendants declined to proceed with the transaction and sought to sell the property at a higher price. The Agreement to Purchase dated 11 September 2021 (Agreement 41) for the sale of the said property at the agreed sum of RM1.3 million is a valid and enforceable contract binding on the parties. The Defendants’ refusal to proceed with the transaction was unjustified and constituted a failure to comply with the agreed terms. 1 Pergantungan prosiding - rujukan ke Timbangtara - telah dibenarkan - Plaintif pohon arahan lanjut untuk mediasi - enggan teruskan rujukan ke Timbangtara - Plaintif seharusnya komited mematuhi kehendak prosidur AIAC - Rujukan ke timbangtara adalah kehendak mandatori setelah semua keperluan yang relevan telah dipenuhi - Mahkamah masih belum functus officio dalam tugas seliaan (monitoring) kes ini kerana ianya masih dalam status tertunggak (pending). Namun, tindakan ini sebenarnya telah diletakkan dalam mode terhenti sementara menunggu keputusan prosiding timbangtara. Bermaksud, kes ini masih perlu di urus dan diselesaikan setelah pertikaian tersebut diputuskan oleh timbangtara - dalam konteks perintah pergantungan yang telah diberi, Mahkamah telah functus officio dalam ertikata, tidak lagi boleh membuat perintah lain yang bertentangan - Permohonan ditolak. 1 Enclosure 10 is an application by the Plaintiff to strike out the Defendant’s counterclaim pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). Defendant’s counterclaim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is legally unsustainable. Enclosure 10 is allowed with costs. The Defendant’s counterclaim is hereby struck out. 1 3. Enclosure 189 raises an important and fundamental question of law, namely whether the giving of untrue or false oral testimony, without more, may properly form the basis of committal proceedings for contempt of court. 4. Flowing from this, the first issue for determination is whether, assuming the testimony in question to be untrue, such conduct falls exclusively within the domain of perjury to be pursued through the criminal process, or whether it is capable, in law, of constituting contempt of court. 5. The second issue is whether the availability of the remedy of perjury precludes the commencement of contempt proceedings, or whether a litigant is, in appropriate circumstances, entitled to elect between initiating committal proceedings for contempt and lodging a police report for perjury. 1 PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Penentuan isu undang-undang terhadap tafsiran terma Surat Ikatan Penyelesaian bertarikh 20 Januari 2020 - Sama ada Klausa 1 dalam Surat Ikatan Penyelesaian bertarikh 20 Januari 2020 hendaklah dibaca tertakluk kepada Klausa 2 Surat Ikatan Penyelesaian tersebut yang mana kesemua tuntutan yang dirujuk sebagai the Indebtedness hendaklah dijelaskan oleh defendan pada atau sebelum 31 Disember 2021 - Sama ada pengesahan daripada Turnpike Synergy Sdn. Bhd. adalah perlu diperolehi sebelum plaintif berhak kepada keseluruhan tuntutan yang dirujuk sebagai the Indebtedness yang hendaklah dijelaskan oleh defendan pada atau sebelum 31 Disember 2021 - Sama ada menurut Surat Ikatan Penyelesaian tersebut, plaintif berhak kepada keseluruhan dan/atau kesemua tuntutan di bawah the Indebtedness yang terdiri daripada Received Certified Progress Claim, Unreceived Certified Progress Claim dan Invoice Claim - Sama ada defendan telah gagal mematuhi terma-terma dalam Surat Ikatan Penyelesaian tersebut, khususnya klausa 2 - Aturan 14A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012 1 TAFSIRAN: Tafsiran dokumen kontrak - Makna biasa ‘notwithstanding’ – Kesan bahagian pengenalan dalam Preamble Surat Ikatan Penyelesaian. 1 1. The Halal Industry Development Corporation (“HDC”), a government-backed entity under the Ministry of Investment, Trade, and Industry entrusted with advancing Malaysia’s halal ecosystem, entered into an Agreement with the Second Plaintiff to organise Halalfest. What began as a cooperative initiative aligned with national industry objectives ultimately faltered, leading to the breakdown of the parties’ relationship and the commencement of this action. 2. The Plaintiffs now seek various remedies, while the First Defendant mounts a counterclaim. 3. It falls to this Court to decide the matter by applying settled principles of contract law to the evidence duly placed before it. 1 Pertikaian Harta Pesaka – muafakat waris selepas perintah pembahagian – kontrak korateral – hak setengah bahagian – amanah kontruktif - Kesan Perintah Pembahagian dan Persetujuan/Muafakat diluar Perintah Pembahagian – penerimaan rakaman perbualan ahli keluarga - diputuskan bahawa arwah Alif memegang setengah bahagian tanah tersebut atas amanah bagi pihak arwah abangnya arwah Firdawos - PSP 1 Permohonan Interlokutori: Defendan-defendan dalam Tuntutan balas memohon membatalkan Tuntutan balas – Kontrak melibatkan pembekalan pekerja kepada plaintif dalam Tuntutan balas – Alegasi defendan-defendan gagal memenuhi kontrak – Bayaran untuk bekalan pekerja-pekerja diakui telah dibayar – Sama ada tuntutan balas remeh dan menyusahkan serta terjumlah kepada penyelewengan proses Mahkamah – Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1)(b) dan (d) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 TRIAL: The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is founded on fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The deceased, Ng Kin Yong, who was the managing director, was in control of Nation Park in terms of overall management and decision-making, including finance – Prior to the demise of Ng Kin Yong, the plaintiffs' shares were owned by the deceased and his siblings, Ng King Chong and Ng Kim Pin - The defendant is wife of the deceased and the executrix and sole beneficiary of the deceased’s estate – The plaintiff’s claim concerns a director’s loan that is due and owing by the deceased - Whether as at November 2016, the deceased owes Nation Park Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) an outstanding sum of RM7,324,111.25 (or such other amount to be determined by this Court), being the director’s loans and/or advances which remain unpaid to date - Whether the deceased, as the director of Nation Park had breached his fiduciary duties, statutory duties under sections 213, 214, 218, 219 and/or 224 of the Companies Act 2016, and/or committed fraud against Nation Park - Whether Ooi Kim Geik, in her capacity as the executrix of the estate of the deceased or in her capacity as a director of Nation Park, can be held liable at all for any breaches of statutory duties, fraud or other wrongdoings allegedly committed by the deceased. 1 CIVIL LAW: Whether the plaintiff’s claim is barred by limitation - Fraud and breach of fiduciary duty must first be proven before one can avail themselves of s. 29 of the Limitation Act 1953 - Sections 6 and 29 of the Civil Law Act 1953. 1 EVIDENCE LAW: Admissibility of Part C documents in Court - Notice to Produce Documents – Sections 65 and 66 and Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950. 1 EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of Proof - Sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act 1950. 1 WRIT: Tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan-defendan akibat kemungkiran Perjanjian Pembangunan Bersama bertarikh 28.4.2021 – Semasa tarikh perbicaraan penuh, wakil plaintif memohon penangguhan untuk melantik peguam cara baharu setelah peguam cara plaintif menarik diri – Mahkamah menolak permohonan penangguhan oleh wakil plaintif dan defendan memohon tuntutan plaintif ditolak – Mahkamah tidak menolak tuntutan plaintif sebaliknya telah membatalkan Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan dan meneruskan dengan kes defendan-defendan bagi Tuntutan Balas. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai kuasa budibicara untuk membatalkan tuntutan plaintif – Mahkamah perlu memberi pertimbangan kepada keadilan – Aturan 35 Kaedah 1 (1) dan (2) dan Aturan 1A Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Pemindahan kes dari Mahkamah Tinggi ke Mahkamah Tinggi lain − Seksyen 23(1) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 dan Aturan 57 kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 − Kuasa kepada Mahkamah Tinggi untuk memerintahkan apa-apa prosiding dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Tinggi lain yang mempunyai “co-ordinate jurisdiction” − Mahkamah perlu mempertimbangkan perenggan (A), (B), (C), (D) atau (E) kepada Aturan 57 k. 1(4). 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KONTRAK: Perjanjian via Proforma Invoice dan Penyata Pembayaran sahaja − Jual beli alat ganti kenderaan dari Malaysia ke Arab Saudi − Alegasi/dakwaan alat ganti kenderaan rosak dan keengganan Defendan Pertama untuk mengganti dengan alat ganti kenderaan yang baharu − Sama ada Plaintif berhak kepada semua tuntutan ganti rugi? − Terdapat ruang dan peluang untuk Plaintif memulangkan semula alat ganti kenderaan yang rosak itu kepada Defendan Pertama − Kegagalan berbuat demikian, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa Defendan-Defendan hendaklah memulangkan deposit 30% yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif itu. 1 Kes ini berkisar terhadap satu tuntutan yang dibuat oleh seorang bapa, Kamarudin bin Abd Talib (“Arwah Kamarudin”), terhadap anak perempuannya, Siti Ramlah binti Kamarudin (“Arwah Siti Ramlah”). Tuntutan ini melibatkan harta yang dibeli oleh Arwah Siti Ramlah dengan menggunakan wang daripada satu akaun bersama yang dipegang atas nama bersama Arwah Kamarudin dan Arwah Siti Ramlah. Wang dalam akaun tersebut adalah hasil daripada penjualan sebidang tanah milik Arwah Kamarudin. Pada masa Arwah Kamarudin memulakan tindakan ini, Arwah Siti Ramlah telah meninggal dunia dan tanah itu telah didaftarkan atas nama menantunya, Azlan bin Aminuddin (“Azlan”), suami kepada Arwah Siti Ramlah. Lantaran, menantu Arwah Kamarudin, iaitu Azlan, dinamakan sebagai Defendan dalam tindakan ini. Arwah Kamarudin juga telah meninggal dunia semasa prosiding ini dan telah digantikan oleh anaknya Ibrahim bin Kamarudin (“Ibrahim”), yang bertindak sebagai Pentadbir kepada harta pusaka Arwah Kamarudin. Akibat pemergian kedua-dua bapa dan anak perempuan, iaitu Arwah Kamarudin dan Arwah Siti Ramlah, kes kini adalah antara anak lelaki dan menantu Arwah Kamarudin, atau antara dua adik-beradik ipar. 1 Komital - Alasan untuk mendapatkan perintah komital terhadap D1 adalah kerana beliau tidak mematuhi atau melanggar perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 29.8.2024 atau telah menghalang (interfere) dengan pentadbiran keadilan dan dengan itu patut didapati bersalah kerana menghina Mahkamah - saya dapati Plaintif berjaya membuktikan bahawa D1 telah melanggar Perintah Injuksi tersebut – pertimbangan hukuman - Saya melihat dan meneliti figura D1 dan mendengar alasan yang beliau berikan. Walaupun saya tidak menerima alasan beliau tidak merujuk kepada Plaintif-Plaintif dalam posting beliau, namun saya faham tindakan yang dibuat bukan berniat untuk menghina Perintah Injuksi yang telah diberikan. Maka, saya telah memberikan amaran dan teguran kepada D1 untuk tidak lagi mengulangi perbuatan beliau dan juga membenarkan kos sebanyak RM3000 diberikan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Permohonan Interlokutori – Notis permohonan oleh Plaintif menurut A. 18 k. 19(1) untuk membatalkan perenggan-perenggan tertentu dalam pembelaan terpinda − Permohonan Defendan untuk membatalkan keseluruhan tuntutan Plaintif atas isu Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil tiada bidangkuasa untuk mendengar tuntutan ini telahpun ditolak oleh Mahkamah ini − Defendan sekali lagi memasukkan hal perkara mengenai “tuntutan Plaintif perlu diadili di Mahkamah Tinggi Shariah dan bukannya Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil kerana Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil tiada bidangkuasa untuk mendengar tuntutan ini” − kes Hartecon JV Sdn Bhd & Anor v Hartela Contractors Ltd [1997] 2 CLJ 104. 1 Terdapat dua permohonan untuk dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah ini. 1 Permohonan pertama ialah permohonan Defendan Kedua dalam Lampiran 13 untuk mengetepikan penghakiman ingkar yang telah dimasukkan oleh Plaintif terhadapnya pada 16 Ogos, 2022. 1 Permohonan kedua ialah permohonan Defendan Ketiga dalam Lampiran 27 untuk mengetepikan penghakiman ingkar yang telah dimasukkan oleh Plaintif terhadapnya pada 16 Ogos 2022. 1 Isu utama dalam kedua-dua Lampiran 13 dan Lampiran 27 ialah sama ada Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga berhak untuk mengetepikan penghakiman-penghakiman ingkar tersebut. 1 Bersandarkan kepada isu utama tersebut, timbul pula persoalan-persoalan yang berkaitan dengan penyerahan proses pemula dan merit permohonan masing-masing. 1 This is an application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 7 seeking Summary Judgment against the Defendant pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 The parties are in agreement as to the applicable legal principles in summary judgment applications. 1 The determinant issue is whether there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial of this claim within the meaning of Order 14 rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the global demand for gloves soared to unprecedented levels, the parties in this case — like many others — entered into a contract for their purchase and supply. However, as with numerous deals struck in the urgency of the crisis, this one too went awry, culminating in the present claim brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. 1 The twin salient issues in this action are as follows. 1 The first is whether there has been a breach of the terms of the contract. 1 The second is whether the Second Defendant engaged in fraudulent conduct, warranting the lifting of the corporate veil to hold her personally liable. 1 Seperti halnya dengan semua perjanjian usahasama, hak dan tanggungjawab pihak-pihak yang terlibat lazimnya diperincikan dengan jelas, dengan matlamat utama untuk mencapai kerjasama yang memberi manfaat bersama. Kes ini tidak terkecuali. Defendan, selaku pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut, telah memeterai satu Perjanjian Usahasama dengan Plaintif, di mana Plaintif dipertanggungjawabkan untuk melaksanakan pembangunan ke atas tanah milik Defendan. Setelah projek pembangunan tersebut disiapkan, kedua-dua pihak dijangka menerima ganjaran masing-masing sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan dalam Perjanjian Usahasama berkenaan. 1 Namun begitu, usaha sama tersebut tidak berjaya disempurnakan dalam jangkamasa yang ditetapkan. Defendan telah menamatkan Perjanjian tersebut atas alasan kelewatan, manakala Plaintif menegaskan bahawa penamatan itu adalah tidak sah dan telah memulakan tindakan ini dengan menuntut pelbagai relif. 1 Mengikut hemat Mahkamah ini, penentuan akan dilakukan berdasarkan kepada persoalan-persoalan seperti berikut: 1 1. Sama ada masa merupakan "intipati" di bawah Perjanjian Usahasama ini? 2. Sama ada kelewatan di pihak Plaintif adalah berjustifikasi dan wajar di bawah Perjanjian Usahasama ini? 3. Sama ada penamatan Perjanjian Usahasama oleh Defendan adalah sah? 4. Sama ada Defendan telah melanggar Klausa 6.5 Perjanjian Usahasama dengan berurusan dengan tanah tersebut? 5. Sama ada plaintif berhak kepada perlaksanaan spesifik atau pampasan? 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Perintah Injunksi Interim − Pendengaran secara inter parte − Sama ada permohonan pengetepian dan/atau pembatalan Perintah Interim Injunksi boleh dibenarkan? − Prinsip undang-undang yang terpakai − Sama ada ganti rugi adalah mencukupi tanpa Perintah Injunksi Interim? Sama ada imbangan kesenangan berpihak kepada Defendan? − Sama ada terdapat isu bona fide untuk dibicarakan? − Afidavit semasa permohonan ex parte akan dinilai semula oleh Mahkamah. 1 This is a civil action arising from a transaction between parties who were, at the material time, “friends” and business acquaintances. What began as a relationship of trust later turned sour, giving rise to this dispute. The Plaintiff has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the sum of RM2,000,000.00 advanced to the Defendants was a friendly loan and not an investment. The Plaintiff’s claim is allowed 1 CONTRACT: Rescission of contract – Large-scale Government project to construct, fully equip a data centre and relocate equipment, fixtures and fittings from existing data centre to new location – Allegation of total failure of consideration – Restitution of the sum – Unjust enrichment – Preparation works done – No basis for rescission ab initio – Sections 40 and 56 of the Contracts Act 1950 1 CONTRACT: Frustration – Impossibility of performance – Change of the location of the project site – Radically different bargain - Sections 57(1) and (2) of the Contracts Act 1950 1 CONTRACT: Remedy in the event of frustration – Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving expenses – Plaintiff’s claims allowed – Counterclaim dismissed – Section 57(3) and 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Section 15 of the Civil Law Act 1956 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Jaminan Kos − Aturan 23 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 − Punca/faktor Defendan-Defendan mohon jaminan kos ialah kerana Plaintif “has no money” i.e. tiada keupayaan dari segi kewangan untuk membayar kos kepada Defendan-Defendan jikalau Plaintif kalah dalam tuntutannya selepas perbicaraan penuh − Carian SSM menunjukkan liabliti Plaintif melebihi aset Plaintif dan Plaintif tidak memfailkan penyata tahun kewangan − Beban pembuktian adalah terletak kepada Defendan-Defendan dan bukan tanggungjawab Plaintif untuk menyangkalnya. 1 1. On 29 July 2025, this Court heard and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Notice of Application dated 6 May 2025, filed under Enclosure 35, with costs of RM5,000.00. 1 2. The said Notice of Application sought an order for an interim injunction to restrain the First Defendant, her representatives, agents and/or related parties from: 1 (1) performing any transactions or dealings in respect of the Property; 1 (2) moving, removing, selling and/or disposing of any assets located on the Property; and 1 (3) making any overlapping claims in relation to the Property. 1 3. Dissatisfied with this Court’s decision, the Plaintiff has filed an appeal under Enclosure 61. 1 4. The following are this Court’s grounds of judgment in relation to the application and dismissal of Enclosure 35. 1 5. The central issue before this Court in Enclosure 35 was whether the Plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for the grant of an interim injunction. 1 This is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Application (Enclosure 10) for summary judgment under Order 14 rules 1 and 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 against both the Defendants jointly and severally. Order 14 empowers the Court to enter summary judgment where the defendant has no defence to the claim or has no defence except as to quantum, unless the defendant satisfies the Court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or some other reason for trial. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendants are indebted for the outstanding settlement sum and late payment interest; that the Side Letter and Letter of Undertaking bind the Defendants; that the Defendants have admitted liability by conduct and correspondence; and that no bona fide triable issue arises. The Defendants resist the application on the grounds that this is within Zurich exclusive jurisdiction due to the Swiss law clause; that the settlement sum is misconstrued; that correspondence is “without prejudice” and inadmissible; that the 2nd Defendant’s liability is limited to “balance payment” and/or is discharged under section 86 of the Contracts Act 1950; and that the late-payment interest computation is said to be questionable. The Court found that the Plaintiff has established a clear and liquidated claim supported by documentary evidence and that the Defendants failed to raise any triable issues. 1 EVIDENCE: Burden of proof – Balance of probabilities – Evidence Act s. 101. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Full trial – Declaration whether Defendants have the right to collect maintenance – Deed of Mutual Covenant – Duty in relation management of building - Claim dismissed. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Representative action – Rules of Court 2012 O. 15 r 12 – Requirement for representative action. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action-Discontinuance of-Application by plaintiffs to discontinue suit with liberty to file afresh-Defendants objected-Effect of rights of defendants-Injustice-Collateral advantage-Not bona fide-dominus litis-deprivation of advantage-Rules of Court 2012; 0.21 r.3 1 Imposter: fraudulent transfer of land - breach of statutory - breach of common law duty of immunity under Section 22 NLC - Section 5, 6, 7 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. 1 Enclosure 4 is the Plaintiff’s application by a Notice of Application dated 3.6.2025 under section 19(1)(c) of the Debtors Act 1957 for an order of attachment before judgment against the Defendant, WeGrow Global Sdn Bhd. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is in substantial arrears of rent and service charges exceeding RM2.29 million, has repudiated the binding effect of a tenancy agreement called the Heads of Terms dated 23.11.2023, and has taken steps to remove its property from the demised premises with intent to defeat execution of any judgment. The Defendant resists the application, contending that the Heads of Terms is not binding, that there is no good cause of action, and that there is neither intent to obstruct nor any act of removal or concealment of property. 1 Civil Procedure: Rules of Court 2012 – Summary Judgment – Whether the Defendants has raised a triable issue – Whether mere denial by the Defendant constitute evidence – Summary Judgment allowed 1 Action for breach of trust, fiduciary duties and/or negligence of director – Whether there are fraudulent misrepresentations – Director’s fiduciary duties - Test to be applied - Whether an honest and intelligent man in similar circumstances could have reasonably believed that the business deals was for the benefit of the company – Negligence – Failure to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence - Sections 213, 214 and 215 Companies Act 2016 1 Tenancy agreement-whether tenancy renewed upon expiry-inferred from the conduct of parties-tenancy subsequently terminated-whether vacant possession delivered in accordance with the clause in the contract-whether claim for double rental justified where vacant possession not delivered to the landlord’s satisfaction-double rental only if there is holding over-whether recourse should be had to the clause in the contract for utilization of deposit-unilateral imposition of late payment charges for outstanding rent 1 Trust over shares - Whether the shares are held on trust - Breach of the trust – Whether according to the company’s Article of Association, trust over the shares can exist - No written record of the trust - Intention to create trust – Purpose of payment - Subsequent conduct – Failure to call material witness - Adverse inference – Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 1 Contract – Assignment of property by way of gift – Plaintiff alleged he is the rightful owner – Defendant alleged her signature was forged – Whether there was forgery – No expert called to testify – Comparison of signatures – Evaluation on direct and circumstantial evidence 1 Civil procedure - striking out - material facts to set up a trust as the legal result - no reasonable cause of action for recovery of trust property on the face of the pleading - pleading consistent with claim for restitution on total failure of consideration of contract of sale - limitation period applies to bar action - section 6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Special development zone - Private lease scheme – SPA deviated from the standard form of agreement in Schedule H of the HDR - Whether the Plaintiff’s action is time barred - Challenging the validity of impugned clauses – Suing for LAD – Insufficient material to decide on LAD claim - Pleadings – Reply to Defence – Whether the alleged illegality of private lease scheme is pleaded – The allegation of illegality is a new but not inconsistent plea – Inadequate submission on the questions raised regarding private lease scheme - Not a suitable case for summary determination 1 Recusal – Alleged ground of bias – Consolidation of proceeding – Suits to be heard together - Filing of consolidated common bundle of documents - Unless Order for repeated non-compliance - Adverse ruling or decision – Real danger of bias test 1 Perjanjian Usahasama - luput/tamat tempoh/ditamatkan - mungkir terma - batasan had masa - harapan sah untuk membangunkan hartanah - frod - gantirugi - keesahan perjanjian usahasama telah luput - tiada kemunugkiran - frod tidak dibuktikan - gantirugi tidak dibuktikan - tuntutan Plaintif ditolak. 1 CONTRACT: Breach of contract - Joint Venture agreement – Reciprocal contractual obligations – Allegation of failure to incorporate a joint venture company and advance funds within the agreed timeline – Waiver of the alleged breach - Acceptance of delayed performance – Counterclaim for breach - Failure to utilise the sum paid in accordance with the joint venture agreement - Privity of contract – Damages 1 Land fraud- fictitious person using non-existent IC no applied for name change from name of registered proprietor (deceased) to another name-land office allowed the change without requesting for IC-no evidence of original title furnished for the transaction-after name change, land was transferred to D1 who then sold land to D3 and D4-D1 also sold land to D2-land was then registered in D2’s name-when D3 and D4 knew of the registration, sought for specific performance of the SPA entered with D1-court allowed the specific performance and ordered land be re-transferred to D1 to give effect to the specific performance order-administrator of estate of deceased came to know of land fraud-sued D1 to D4-sued Land Administrator also for negligence and breach of statutory duties-whether D1 can obtain good title from fraudster who has no title-whether D1 and D2 were privy to the fraud-whether D3 and D4 can claim any interest in the land-whether D3 and D4 can raise res judicata re entitlement to land as specific performance had been granted them-whether the evidence establishes negligence and breach of statutory duties-whether defence of s.22 of National Land Code avails Land Administrator. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Determination on Question of Laws – Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 – Court’s own motion to dispose case on point of laws – Dispensation of viva voce evidence – The dispute between two beneficiaries over the Deceased’s property – Whether the Power of Attorney survived the death of the donor – The effect of an incomplete inter vivos gift – Questions posed answered in negative 1 CONTRACT LAW: Sections 5 and 6 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1949 – Power of Attorney is valid until it is revoked/renounced/death of the donor – Irrevocable Power of Attorney – Valuable consideration – Section 26(a) of the Contracts Act 1950, illustration (b) – Whether love and affection constitute as valuable consideration – No valuable consideration found in this case 1 EQUITY: Whether the Court has equitable jurisdiction to enforce or complete an unperfected gift – The principle in Strong v Bird – The failure of the Donor to execute the necessary transfer forms during his living renders the gift to be unperfected – No equity applicable to perfect an imperfect inter vivos gift 1 Civil Procedure – Striking out – O 18 r 19 ROC – No reasonable cause of action – Abuse of process – Scandalous pleadings. Succession – Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 – Letter of Administration – s 29(1) SEDA – Time bar – Challenge filed out of time. Locus Standi – Whether Plaintiffs persons interested in estate – Business partners and witnesses to Will. Pleadings – Fraud – Lack of particulars – Bare allegations – Failure to produce alleged Will. Probate – Alleged suppression/destruction of Will – No evidence – No triable issue. 1 CONTRACT: Purchasers claim against developer - Representative action – LAD for late delivery of vacant possession – Computation of LAD – Whether the start date is date of booking fee payment or SPA date – Date of bargain - Extension of time granted pursuant to Covid-19 Act – Exclusion period for LAD calculation – Whether the exclusion period only applied to those purchasers who paid a booking deposit before 31 May 2021 – Interpretation of section 38C(4) of the Covid-19 Act – Whether calculation of LAD based on purchase price or discounted price 1 TORT: Private nuisance - Denial of entry to the access roads - Interference with Plaintiff’s right to use of land - Whether Defendant’s actions were unreasonable - Whether nuisance established - Assessment of damages - Proof of special damages – Counterclaim - Whether the Defendant sued as the residents association has locus standi to sue for nuisance on behalf of the residents 1 Judgment after trial – Claim for payment under an Indemnity Agreement – Counterclaim – Allegation of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation – Allegation of criminal intimidation – Nature of the threat adduced in evidence was insufficient to establish criminal intimidation – No element of coercion established – Section 15 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Section 503 of the Penal Code (Act 574) 1 Whether the Defendant was induced by any misrepresentation – Burden of proof – claim not substantiated on balance of probabilities – Consistency between the evidence and witness testimony – Section 18 of the Contracts Act 1950 1 Whether the Defendant executed the Indemnity Agreement under any undue influence – Burden of proof – No evidence of power to dominate the Defendant's free will – Section 16 of the Contracts Act 1950 1 Whether there was any subsequent agreement that waived the Plaintiff’s rights under the Indemnity Agreement – No waiver or variation to compromise the Plaintiff’s rights under the agreement – Defendant bounds by the terms of agreement 1 Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Order 14 ROC 2012 — Whether defence raises bona fide triable issue — Shadowy defence — Pure point of law. Contract — Sale and Purchase Agreement — Balance purchase price — Non-payment — Vendor’s entitlement — Whether purchaser discharged obligation. Conveyancing — Stakeholder — Whether purchaser’s solicitor a true stakeholder — Joint appointment requirement — Solicitor as agent — Misappropriation of stakeholder funds — Purchaser bearing risk. Agency — Solicitor acting for purchaser — Payment to agent — Whether constitutes payment to vendor — Effect of solicitor’s default. Limitation — Limitation Act 1953 — Sections 6(1)(a), 26, 27 — Part payment — Acknowledgment in writing — Acknowledgment via WhatsApp — Fresh limitation period — Whether claim time-barred. Evidence — Acknowledgment by agent — Whether binding on principal — Contemporaneous documents — No factual dispute. Equity — Unjust enrichment — Purchaser receiving title and possession — Non-payment of purchase price — Fairness and conscience. Land Law — Transfer of title — Vacant possession — Conveyancing duties — Effect of registration and enjoyment of property. Practice & Procedure — Whether matter fit for summary disposal — Avoiding unnecessary trial — Clear debt claim. 1 EVIDENCE: Admissibility of documents – Onus of proof lies on one who asserts forgery and fabrication – Production of original document – Exception to hearsay under Section 32 and 73A of the Evidence Act 1950 1 LAND: Ownership of land – Sale of land vide oral agreement – Hearsay – Absence of direct evidence – Circumstantial evidence – No adverse possession under section 341 of the National Land Code 1965 – Allegation that the Power of Attorney represented as an instrument to transfer the land – Possession of the title extracts – Inconsistent accounts of the hearsay – Neither party proved their proprietary rights to the land 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Impugned judgment – Impeachment – Jurisdiction – High Court – Whether one High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a final order of another High Court – Locus standi to set aside the impugned judgment – Proof of fraud - Derry v Peek misrepresentations 1 Civil Procedure - Disposal of action without trial - Beneficiaries’ action against administrators - Whether action is estopped by the doctrine of res judicata in view of two prior consent judgments - Whether the court lack of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought - Whether action time-barred - Sections 6(2), 6(3), 6(6) and 22(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1953 1 Interim injunction — trespass to land — Plaintiff registered proprietor — Defendants alleged to have entered and carried out earthworks, excavation, slope cutting and drain construction on Plaintiff’s land without consent — removal and sale of soil — trespass actionable per se — serious issue to be tried established — photographic evidence and Defendant’s affidavit admitting works near boundary — damages inadequate due to permanent alteration and uniqueness of land — balance of convenience favours Plaintiff — undertaking and hoarding fences do not render application academic — risk of recurrence — mandatory injunction refused pending trial — prohibitory injunction granted — costs in the cause. 1 BICARA PENUH: Plaintif dan defendan bekas pasangan suami isteri – Defendan menjalankan perniagaan bengkel kereta dikenali CH Yap Car Wiring Services sejak tahun 2004 dan sejak itu plaintif menguruskan akaun perniagaan defendan termasuk hasil tunai perniagaan dan perbankan yang berterusan sehingga akhir bulan Mei 2023 – Pertikaian dalam guaman ini adalah melibatkan hak terhadap rumah teres dua tingkat yang terletak di D23, Jalan Sunway 2/4, Taman Sunway Cheras, 43200 Cheras, Selangor yang dibeli oleh defendan dan didaftarkan atas nama plaintif dan defendan – Melalui terma dikri nisi yang direkodkan, plaintif bersetuju memindahmilik ½ bahagian plaintif atas hartanah tersebut kepada defendan dan plaintif dibenarkan memegang harta tersebut atas amanah bagi defendan – Plaintif menandatangani Power of Attorney bertarikh 4.1.2008 – Plaintif memplidkan wujud persetujuan secara lisan antara plaintif dan defendan bahawa defendan akan menerima daripada plaintif RM500,000.00 dan sebagai balasan defendan akan memindahmilik bahagian defendan atas hartanah kepada plaintif – Sama ada terdapat perjanjian lisan antara plaintif dan defendan berkenaan dengan hartanah tersebut – Sama ada defendan merupakan pemilik sebenar wang yang keseluruhan berjumlah RM837,202.52 yang diambil oleh plaintif dari akaun Public Bank Berhad dan dipindahkan ke akaun simpanan tetap plaintif – Sama ada wang RM450,000.00 melalui bank draf dan RM40,000.00 yang didepositkan ke dalam akaun defendan adalah wang defendan – Sama ada pembayaran RM120,000.00 oleh plaintif dari wang defendan dalam Alliance Bank bagi menyelesaikan baki pinjaman perumahan dilakukan dengan pengetahuan dan persetujuan defendan. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Sama ada Mahkamah ini mempunyai kuasa untuk mengenepikan perintah dikri nisi bertarikh 28.1.2008 yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur melalui Petisyen Bersama untuk Perceraian No. S8-33-62-2008 – Undang-undang memberi ruang kepada plaintif dan defendan untuk mengubah terma dikri nisi – Kaedah 3 Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN – Beban bukti terletak di bahu plaintif – Seksyen 101 dan seksyen 103 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 CONTRACT: The plaintiff is suing the defendant for an unpaid referral fee or commission of RM2,241,800 related to students recruited in 2020, 2021, and 2022, based on an alleged oral agreement between the parties - The defendant owns and operates City University Malaysia, a university that offers higher education opportunities, including management training programs and other internal courses - In 2020, the defendant appointed Eye Knowledge Sdn Bhd through an agency agreement dated 11.02.2020 to provide student recruitment services for City University Malaysia - Eye Knowledge has, in turn, engaged and appointed the plaintiff under a Student Recruitment Agency Agreement dated 01.07.2020 (“SRA 2020”) to provide student recruitment services for City University Malaysia - Eye Knowledge has subsequently instructed and authorised the defendant to make payments on its behalf to the plaintiff, as specified in SRA 2020, for students recruited by the plaintiff for City University Malaysia - Whether the plaintiff at all material times has been a student recruitment agent for the defendant - Whether there is a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for student recruitment services in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 - Whether the plaintiff has any basis to claim against the defendant for the quantum of RM 2,241,800.00 as commission for students recruited in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim against the defendant under unjust enrichment for student recruitment services rendered in years 2020, 2021 and 2022 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to restitution from the defendant under Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 for the student recruitment services rendered in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleading - The plaintiff’s claim is based on an oral contract - Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded its case for and/or to support the allegations of an oral contract with the defendant for student recruitment services in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022? 1 EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of proof - Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950. 1 Joint Venture Agreement - Conduct of Parties - Planning Permission - Town and Country Planning Act 1976 - interpretation of valid planning permission. 1 Application by the Defendants to disqualify Messrs. E.J. Ong & Partners and other solicitors from the same firm from representing the Plaintiff pursuant to Rules 3,4,5 and/or 28(a) of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 - The Defendant's main allegation in the present suit is that the Tenancy Agreement was tainted with illegality and therefore void. As Mr. Ong was the one who acted for the 1st Defendant in advising, drafting and perusing the Tenancy Agreement on the 1st Defendant's behalf, he would be a potential witness for the Defendants - I do not see this as an embarrassment, a possible conflict of interest, or a breach of the principle of bias under the rules of natural justice if Mr. Ong or the firm continues to represent the Plaintiff - Defendants had not demonstrated whether Mr. Ong or his firm had a pecuniary interest in this case that would justify such disqualification - dismissed the application with no order as to costs. 1 KONTRAK: Jual beli rumah – Defendan enggan menyempurnakan pindahmilik – Perjanjian dikaburi dengan perjanjian pinjaman haram - Sama ada wujud paksaan dan salahnyataan oleh defendan kedua dan ketiga dalam tuntutan balas – Kesemua dokumen pindahmilik ditandatangani oleh defendan dan kebenaran pindahmilik telah diperoleh – Pelaksanaan spesifik – Seksyen 11 Akta Relief Spesifik 1950. 1 TUGAS BERHATI-HATI PEGUAM: Kewajipan terhad kepada anakguam – Kaedah 16 Kaedah-kaedah Profesion Undang-undang (Amalan dan Etiket) 1978 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Pliding – Pembelaan tidak diplidkan – Pengkelasan dokumen – Beban bukti – Aturan 34 kaedah 2 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 Application to disqulify the Plaintiff's legal firm from acting as the Plaintiff solcitors. Whether the firm's prior representation of the Defendant in matters related to the same development project created a conflict of interest or a risk of misuse of confidential information. Defendant's pplication in Enclosure 6 is allowed. 1 Permohonan merekodkan Penghakiman Ingkar Pembelaan - tuntutan Plf melibatkan prayers atau permohonan untuk perintah mengisytiharkan hak Plaintif keatas hartanah tersebut yang mana Defendan dikatakan telah melakukan pencerobohan - juga melibatkan dakwaan-dakwaan berunsur fitnah, kacau ganggu, tort conversion dan detinue dan juga gantirugi - bukan untuk satu jumlah yang tertentu (liquidated claim) - Plaintif gagal mematuhi kehendak peruntukan Kaedah 56 Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Guaman (Amalan dan Etiket) 1978 (KPG 1978) kerana tidak memberikan notis tujuh (7) hari sebelum memohon untuk perintah penghakiman ingkar - diputuskan bahawa Ketidak patuhan mana-mana kaedah atau peraturan yang diperuntukan tidak boleh mengatasi peruntukan atau keperluan dalam KKM - Sungguhpun begitu, setiap peguam harus mengambil berat dalam usaha untuk sentiasa mengikuti panduan etika yang digubal demi menjaga perhubungan profesionalisma antara peguam dalam pematuhan tatacara dan prosidur pengendalian kes-kes selagi tidak bertentangan dengan kehendak KKM - Mahkamah tetap mempunyai budi bicara dalam perihal perlanjutan masa bagi tujuan pematuhan pemfailan pliding mengikut KKM - Defendan dalam kes ini tidak menunjukan perlakuan dengan sengaja ingin melengahkan atau berniat untuk tidak mematuhi kehendak KKM dalam pemfailan pembelaan beliau. Ini berlaku dalam tempoh masa yang sudah dilanjutkan dengan persetujuan pihak-pihak. Malah pembelaan telah difailkan, walaupun lewat, sebelum tarikh pengurusan kes selanjutnya - Permohonan ditolak. 1 Civil Justice - claim for breach of contract - evidence reveals wrong party sued - the principle of separate legal entity not adhered to - pleaded case lack particularity - sum claimed not particularized - terms of contract including offer and absolute acceptance not pleaded - claim not proven - claim dismissed with costs - as existence of contract not established - counterclaim falls and also dismissed with costs. 1 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION - An interim injunction against the defendant to preserve the status quo of the premises pending the disposal of the main suit - The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant, a subsidiary of Malaysia Airport Holdings Berhad, which operates Malaysia International Airports, KLIA Terminal 1 and KLIA Terminal 2, from exercising its right to terminate the plaintiff for a breach of authorised use - The Plaintiff is operating one Airport Lounge (Plaza Premium Lounge) and three Food & Beverage Outlets which are Flight Club Signature (FCS), The Summerhouse (TS) and Flight Club (FC) in KLIA 1 - Defendant is responsible for the management, operation, maintenance and development of the KLIA - For KLIA Terminal 1, Defendant provides airport services to more than 23 million passengers annually and manages more than 100 tenants, ranging from core business types such as retail, food and beverages, services, and tenancies such as storage and offices - The defendant has rented out 56 food and beverage outlets at KLIA. 1 Whether the defendant, as the landlord, can impose additional terms to prevent the plaintiff from conducting business-to-business (B2B) transactions at the FCS, TS, and FC after the tenancy has commenced - Whether the plaintiff provided complimentary corporate set meals to its customers at FCS FC and TS, and if so, whether that constituted a breach of the authorised business of the F&B outlets - Where does the balance of convenience lie – Whether damages are an adequate remedy in tenancy cases - The defendant operates critical public amenities and services within the airport- Defendant is to regulate and manage its tenants and limited spaces according to changes in passenger footfall and demand trends from time to time. 1 O14A/O33 – O18 – heard together – tenancy agreement – option to renew - main issue in the tenancy dispute is whether the tenancy agreement between the Defendant and the Third Party was validly renewed for another three years after its expiration - The key question for determination by this Court is whether or not there is a concluded renewed tenancy for the property - answered the question of law posed in the negative and therefore judgment was entered against the Defendant as prayed for and damages to be assessed - I also find that the Defendant’s Third Party Notice does not disclose reasonable cause of action against the Third Party and therefore was struck out with costs. 1 TORT: The plaintiff’s claim is against the defendant for negligence in constructing the retaining wall in 2005 with an inadequate factor of safety (FoS) which caused to its collapse on 6.12.2018 – The property is situated on sloping terrain directly adjacent to a pond within the Kota Permai Golf and Country Club - All four experts reached a consensus in Bundle L, agreeing that the retaining wall collapsed due to a rise in the groundwater level behind it - Bundle L does not constitute technical evidence, as some parts are inconclusive and the Court has a duty to determine the findings of fact - Whether the Defendant owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff as pleaded in paragraph 26 of the Statement of Claim dated 16.11.2021 - Whether the Defendant had breached its duty of care owed to the Plaintiff as pleaded in paragraph 27 of the Statement of Claim - Whether the Defendant failed to construct the Retaining Wall with a sufficient FOS value, resulting in its collapse on 6.12.2018 - Whether the plaintiff can rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1 EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of proof - Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950 1 This is a claim arising from a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 3.3.2010 (the SPA) entered into between the Plaintiff, DPI Technology Sdn. Bhd., and the Defendants, Ho Foo and Seng Swee Yin, in respect of a leasehold vacant land measuring 2,380 square metres, held under State Lease No. 65618, Lot 50135, Section 15, situated at Ampang Town, Ulu Langat District, Selangor. Defendants had breached both the consent judgment and the SPA, therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to terminate the SPA and the deposit to be refunded and also eligible for the rental payments suffered as consequesntial losses from the Defendants’ breach. Plaintiff’s claim is allowed. 1 1. The circumstances giving rise to this dispute are, in truth, most unfortunate. 2. Although the present claim is directed against the Defendant, the genesis of the conflict lies in the prior dealings and informal arrangements between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband, Edgar, who is also the Plaintiff’s stepfather. 3. The evidence indicates that the Plaintiff had agreed to financially assist Edgar, and that these arrangements became intertwined with the property that is the subject matter of this suit. 4. The property originally belonged to the Defendant, but was thereafter transferred into the Plaintiff’s name. As a result, the Defendant, though not the main actor in the underlying dealings, now finds herself caught in the middle of the disagreement between her husband and his stepson, the Plaintiff. 5. As is often the case when family members transact informally, relying on trust, goodwill, and unrecorded understandings, misunderstandings predictably arose, eventually culminating in this litigation. 6. This Court is faced with two conflicting accounts. Its duty is to evaluate the evidence and determine, on a balance of probabilities, the true nature of the parties’ arrangement and the legal consequences that follow. 1 This is an application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 9 for discovery of documents against the Defendants pursuant to Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Plaintiff’s main claims against the Defendants are for, inter alia, breaches of fiduciary duties, breaches of terms of employment contracts, misuse of confidential information, conspiracy to injure and unlawful interference with trade. 1 The central issue in this application is whether the circumstances warrant this Court's exercise of discretion to grant an order for discovery. 1 In dealing with this key issue, a number of subsidiary issues emerge, and these include questions such as: • Whether the Defendant has possession of the Requested Documents; • Whether the Requested Documents are relevant to the facts in issue of this case; • Whether such an order is necessary for the fair disposal of the matter; and • Whether the Requested Documents are too wide and amount to a fishing expedition. 1 By all accounts, the First Plaintiff, a lady in her twilight years, has led a fortunate life, blessed with seven children and a husband who, in his lifetime, proved his devotion by taking out an insurance policy with AIA and naming her as the sole beneficiary. But fortune, it seems, has its irony. For in her later years, she now stands before this Court in an unfortunate position: compelled to litigate against one of her own children over the very proceeds of that policy. 1 At its core, this case turns on a single, central question: Whether the monies in the four fixed deposit accounts belong to the First Plaintiff, or to the family collectively? The surrounding allegations and counter-allegations merely orbit this principal inquiry. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Jaminan Kos − Aturan 23 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 − Punca/faktor Defendan cum plaintif dalam tuntutan balas mohon jaminan kos justifikasi untuk membenarkan permohonan jaminan kos − Plaintif (syarikat diperbadankan di Malaysia) tetapi hanya mempunyai pengarah tunggal dan pemegang saham tunggal iaitu Mr. Lu Huiming, seorang warganegara China dalah jelas dan nyata bahawa pengarah tunggal dan pemegang saham tunggal ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction of the court. − Jaminan kos bukan suatu penindasan terhadap Plaintif. 1 Sale and purchase agreement of palm oil land; delivery of vacant possession; encroachment by neighbouring lots; de minimis rule; waiver of encroachment; unjust enrichment; 1 Applications to amend pleadings, whether they concern the original Statement of Claim, Defence, or their amended versions, are a common feature of litigation. Such amendments serve to clarify the real issues in dispute and facilitate the just disposal of proceedings. The principles governing the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant or refuse leave to amend are well-established. Ultimately, the determination turns on the particular factual matrix of each case and the grounds advanced by the parties. This is the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 35 dated 25 September, 2024 for leave to further amend its Amended Statement of Claim dated 13 October, 2023. On 24 March, 2025, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 35. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on 14 April 2025. These are the grounds of judgment in respect of Enclosure 35. 1 1. The Plaintiff is a medical practitioner who formerly conducted his private medical practice and clinic operations through a corporate entity whilst the Defendant is a private limited company engaged in the business of medical consultancy and healthcare services. Between them, the parties entered into two Share Sale Agreements pursuant to which the Plaintiff divested his shareholding in the said company to the Defendant. These agreements were plainly intended to be mutually beneficial, with the respective rights, obligations, and consideration of the parties carefully and expressly stipulated therein. 2. What followed, however, was a series of allegations and counter-allegations of breach and non-compliance, with each party attributing fault to the other. These disputes ultimately crystallised into the present proceedings, which centre upon the construction, performance, and legal effect of the two interrelated Share Sale Agreements executed in 2017 and 2019 respectively. The resolution of this matter turns on the proper interpretation of the contractual terms, the credibility of the parties’ competing narratives, and the legal consequences flowing from their conduct both before and after the transfer and acquisition of the shares. 1 Sale and Purchase Agreement - Developer has been dissolved - Early vacant possession delivered prior to completion - Terms of agreement fail to address the conveyancing process - Variation of the agreement - Failure to adhere to the supplementary agreement. 1 Damages – Assessment of damages – High Court’s judgment was affirmed by Court of Appeal and remitted for assessment – Dispute relating to ownership of carpark lots – Assessment of electricity charges/bills – Differing tabulations of bills between parties – Damages assessed must be actual damages – The credibility/weight of expert affidavits in assessing damages – Whether six years limitation period applies at the assessment of damages stage – Section 6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 – Order 37 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 CATCHWORD BA-22NCvC-359-09/2024 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory Application - Application to amend Statement of Defence – Application objected by the Third Defendant – Whether the application was made in good faith – Whether the amendment will create prejudice to other parties – Whether the amendment in effect turn the suit from one character into another – Application dismissed. RULES OF COURT 2012: Order 20 Rule 5 1 Principle of Stare Decisis - whether Ang Ming Lee aplies prospectively as held by the Federal Court in Obata - Unjust Enrichment - Estoppel. 1 Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 - Application to restrain alleged solicitation of employees - Alleged unlawful interference with trade and conspiracy - Expired non-solicitation and non-competition clauses - Alleged risk of disclosure of confidential information - Whether serious issue to be tried - Whether damages adequate remedy - Balance of convenience - Status quo - Keet Gerald test - Interim injunction refused Rules of Court 2012, O 29 - Specific Relief Act 1950 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out-Application pleads sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of O.18 r.19 cumulatively- Whether application is void or ineffective because multiple limbs pleaded together 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out- Action- Action arising from dismissal of earlier objections and judicial review proceedings- Res judicata-Allegation that the present action mirrors those previously raised and adjudicated during the Appeal Board Hearing and subsequent High Court judicial review-Whether causes of action similar-Whether parties similar-Whether matters and issues in the present action ventilated in previous proceedings- Whether case caught by res judicata 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out- Action-Cause of action premised on alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation and negligence-Time barred-No fresh breach pleaded-Whether six-year limitation period already sets in-Limitation Act 1953; s.6(1) 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out- Action- 4th defendant, an original purchaser, not a party to SPA involving the Plaintiffs-Whether there is duty of care- Whether sufficient legal proximity between parties 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out-Action-5th defendant, a local planning authority without the power to approve rezoning or change in land-Whether plaintiffs‘ claim discloses reasonable cause of action against 5th defendant- Whether plaintiffs‘ claim against 5th defendant has procedural impropriety pursuant to O.53 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out- Action-Cause of action- Plaintiffs merely adjacent landowners- Whether plaintiffs have any legal interest or rights to object to the change of land use- Whether Plaintiffs have registered interest, statutory lien, leasehold or easement over the lot- Limited procedural rights to adjacent landowners at specific stage-Town and Country Planning Act 1976; s.13(2); s.21(6) 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings-Issue not pleaded-Cause of action tort of nuisance, but failed to identify specific act of nuisance occurred-Plaintiff’s claim unparticularised and speculative 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Representative action- Requirements- Whether prerequisites for a representative action satisfied- Whether pleading disclosed the harm complained of was uniformly suffered -Whether reliefs sought beneficial to all class member-Rules of Court 2012; O.15 r.12 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — Striking out — Res judicata — Doctrine extends to issues which have been or which ought to have been raised in prior proceedings — Whether same issues challenged in earlier proceedings — Whether amounts to abuse of court’s process 1 Interlocutory application – Determination on Question of Laws – Contentious probate matter – Allegation of fraud in obtaining Letters of Administration – Letter of Administration of trust property – Administrator in the capacity of creditor – Whether the grant was validly granted – Whether there is any fraud involved – Insufficient agreed facts – Viva voce evidence required to determine the issues – Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 – Section 22 & 30 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 1 Civil Procedure – Anton Piller Order – Application to set aside/stay – Strong prima facie case – Serious potential harm – Risk of destruction of evidence – Digital evidence. Confidential Information – Misuse of proprietary materials – Extraction of files – Metadata/forensic listing – Personal devices and cloud storage. Employment – Former employee – Breach of confidence – Post-resignation conduct – Competing activities. Conspiracy – Circumstantial inference – Parallel commercial conduct – Absence of direct evidence. Full and Frank Disclosure – Ex parte duty – Whether material nondisclosure. Execution of Order – Supervising solicitors – Allegations of oppression – Lawful adherence to safeguards. Stay Application – Exceptional circumstances – Preservation of evidence – Prejudice. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out-Action-Abuse of process of court- Action arising from final arbitration award and subsequent High Court proceedings-Parties then entered consent judgment during appeal in Court of Appeal-Whether case vexatious, frivolous, scandalous and abuse of process of court-Whether ought to be struck out 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out- Action- Action arising from final arbitration award and subsequent High Court proceedings-Parties then entered consent judgment during appeal in Court of Appeal- Res judicata-Allegation that arbitral tribunal had fully determined the same issues- Whether causes of action similar-Whether parties similar-Whether matters and issues in the present action ventilated in previous proceedings 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out-Action-Whether plaintiff’s claim discloses reasonable cause of action against the defendants- Plaintiff alleged the tortious claim in the suit different from contractual issues determined in arbitration-Allegation there was fraud and conspiracy- Pleadings devoid of material particulars required to sustain action of fraud and conspiracy -Whether pleadings satisfy the minimum threshold of clarity and specificity required under O.18 r.7 and 12 of ROC 2012 1 Civil Procedure — Interlocutory injunction — Whether bona fide serious question to be tried — Whether appellants possessed locus standi — Whether appellants had legal or beneficial interest in company — Adequacy of damages — Balance of convenience — Discretion of court — Appeal dismissed. Company Law — Share acquisition — Resignation of directors — Transfer of shareholdings — Whether appellants remained directors or shareholders — Whether appellants entitled to restrain management of company — Statutory records contradicting appellants’ claim. Equity — Injunction — Equitable relief — Requirement of clean hands — Failure to make full and frank disclosure — Effect on exercise of court’s discretion. Remedies — Injunction — Temporary and discretionary remedy — Whether damages adequate remedy — Whether irreparable harm established — Commercial dispute. Courts and Judges — Appeal — Interlocutory matter — Scope of appellate intervention Practice and Procedure — Affidavits — Bare allegations of fraud — Sufficiency of evidence at interlocutory stage — Evaluation of factual matrix. 1 Claim by Plaintiff as co-proprietor of land for vacant possession and demolish shop house constructed by Defendant-Plaintiff owns 1/8 of land with 10 others-claims that portion of the land she owns had the shop house-Defendants occupied land based on consent and licence given by previous owner before land transferred to the Plaintiff-land had not been partitioned, nor any application made to partition land according to the respective shareholding-whether the 1/8 portion owned by the Plaintiff has been sufficiently identified for her to claim for vacant possession and demand for demotion of shop house-whether the failure to join the other co-owners as plaintiffs is fatal-whether the consent to occupy given by Plaintiff’s predecessor operates as estoppel against Plaintiff and Defendants have an equitable right to continue to occupy land. 1 Repudiation of contract - Claim for wrongful termination and refund of the sums paid – Counterclaim for damages in loss of future crop production – Time of the essence - Whether time was set at large – Acquiescence - Whether Defendant had wrongfully terminated the contract 1 Striking out application - Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 - Impeachment of a final order for summary judgment - Whether the court order was obtained by fraud – Fresh evidence discovered - Whether there was any fraudulent concealment 1 CONTRACT: Commission Agreement - Introduction Fee - Whether the Agreement is void for illegality – Sale and purchase of shares in property holding company -Doctrine of privity - Whether 2nd Plaintiff has privity of contract to claim under the Agreement as the alter ego of 1st Plaintiff - Separate legal entity - Piercing the corporate veil – Alter ego - Whether there is any justification to lift the corporate veil to impose liability on related parties who are not named obligors in the Commission Agreement 1 CONTRACT: Tenancy Agreement - Landlord and tenant - A registered lessee has proprietary rights to the Land and is the beneficial owner of the Land - Whether Defendant has an indefinite extension of the Tenancy Agreement - Oral or implied contract - Parol evidence rule - Section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 - Tenancy coupled with equity - Alleged representations that the Defendant could remain on the Land indefinitely - Alleged expenditure spent in reliance upon the alleged representations - Probabilities of the alleged representations 1 Civil Procedure – Striking Out – Rules of Court 2012 – Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) – Frivolous, Vexatious and Abuse of Process – Collateral Attack on prior Court Order. Limitation Time-Barred Action – Setting aside Consent Order – Order 42 rule 13 – 30-day period. Service and Notice – Consent Order – Validity of Service – Letterbox and notice board posting – Constructive Notice/Knowledge – Knowledge of solicitor imputed to client. Equity – Declaratory Relief – Delay/Laches – Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit. Estoppel – Approbation and Reprobation – Inconsistent conduct – "Blow hot and cold". Fraud – Allegation of fraud – Necessity for Cogent Evidence and Particulars. Strata Management Law – Maintenance and sinking fund charges – Management Corporation (MC). 1 Civil procedure – Interlocutory – Determination on Question of Laws –– Batang Kali landslide incident – Negligence – Duty of care – The Defendant is the former registered landowner – Whether the Defendant possess duty of care – Whether there is a breach of duty of care – Whether there was a break in the chain of causation – Whether the alleged cause of action is time-barred – Whether O14A suitable in determining the 3-fold test of foreseeability, proximity and policy consideration – Facts need to be tried and proved – Viva voce evidence required to determine the issues – Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 – Order 33 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the Court’s decision who declined to grant the Plaintiff leave to commence committal proceedings against the Defendant under Order 52 of the Rules of Court 2012. Committal requires strict procedural compliance. Here, the operative Court of Appeal order alleged to have been breached was not served, having instead served a copy of the amended High Court order; service was irregular; the penal notice was attached only to an obsolete High Court order; and the alleged acts do not correspond to any surviving operative terms of the order. These are not minor defects but strike at the foundation of committal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has therefore failed to cross the mandatory threshold for leave. 1 Plaintiff entered into a sale and purchase agreement to sell property to Defendant-Defendant sued for specific performance of the SPA when Plaintiff refused to honour agreement-specific performance ordered by court vide judgment in default in 2012-Plaintiff applied to set aside judgment in default-failed-appeal to Court of Appeal withdrawn-judgment for specific performance becomes final between parties-meanwhile Plaintiff transferred land to third party-Defendant sued Plaintiff for order that land be transferred to it following the SPA entered earlier-judgment given to Defendant-Plaintiff’s appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed-leave to Federal Court also dismissed-Plaintiff now sues to impeach judgment in 2012 on grounds of fraud-whether res judicata applies as facts upon which fraud was based could have been raised in the application to set aside judgment in 2012-whether judicial estoppel applies as the Plaintiff is taking inconsistent stand with earlier suit. 1 Civil Procedure -Striking Out - Application under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 - Whether claim is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process - Principles governing striking out - Whether claim discloses a reasonable or arguable cause of action - Drastic remedy to be invoked only in plain and obvious cases. Courts Jurisdiction - Exclusive jurisdiction of Syariah Court - Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution - Whether the claim for revocation of probate and administration of estate falls within civil High Court's jurisdiction - Whether the issue of conversion to Islam is merely incidental or collateral. Probate and Administration -Will - Validity of Will - Will executed prior to conversion - Invalidation of non-Muslim testator's Will upon conversion to Islam (Hukum Syarak) - Grant of Probate - Challenge to validity of probate - Revocation of grant obtained through concealment or misrepresentation. Estate Administration - Distribution of estate in accordance with Islamic law (faraid). 1 Summary judgment - Services agreement – Payment due for services provided - Alleged triable issue - Whether the agreement is illegal - Nature of the transaction – Whether it is a Syariah compliant factoring product 1 Civil procedure — Preliminary issues — Order 33 r 2 Rules of Court 2012 — Application to determine limitation, fraudulent concealment and injury as preliminary issues — Whether issues raised are pure questions of law — Whether issues involve disputed facts and expert medical evidence — Whether determination would result in piecemeal adjudication Limitation Act 1953 ss 6(1)(a), 29 — Medical negligence — Product liability — Alleged metallosis arising from hip implant — Global recall — Alleged fraudulent concealment — Whether suitable for summary determination — Order 33 application dismissed — Action to proceed to full trial. 1 Trespass - Claim for vacant possession and general damages – Beneficial ownership to an undivided sub-lot land held under master title - Defence of bona fide purchaser for value - No register title - Cannot rely on the concept of deferred indefeasibility - Nemo dat quod non habet - Validity of original 1984 sale and purchase agreements - Validity of subsequent sale - Plaintiff remains as the owner because she never sold the land and still has in her possession her original 1984 sale and purchase agreement – Onus of proof shifted to Defendant to prove her ownership - Payment of utility and quit rent or assessments is not proof of ownership - Failure to call witnesses to testify - Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Permohonan membatalkan Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan – Sama ada Mahkamah Tinggi boleh mengenepikan Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi dalam Guaman 580 bertarikh 7.6.2024 dan Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi dalam Guaman Sivil- BA-24NCVC-1086-09/2018 bertarikh 22.11.2018 – Keputusan dalam Guaman 580 telah dirayu oleh plaintif-plaintif dan rayuan belum didengar – Selepas notis rayuan difailkan, plaintif-plaintif mencabar keputusan Guaman 580 dalam guaman baharu di Mahkamah Tinggi – Defendan kelima diisytiharkan tidak berkeupayaan mental dan diwakili oleh sahabat wakil – Defendan kelima dicabar dalam prosiding semasa kerana telah menjadi wali pernikahan anak perempuan – Keputusan dalam Guaman 580 dicemari dengan frod - Plaintif ingin memanggil saksi pakar agama Islam untuk menentukan kesahan defendan kelima sebagai wali – Sama ada tuntutan plaintif-plaintif terjumlah kepada penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah – Sama ada prinsip res judicata terpakai – Sama ada plaintif-plaintif berjaya mengecualikan pemakaian prinsip res judicata atas alasan penipuan – Sama ada plaintif-plaintif telah mempunyai peluang yang baik mencabar keadaan mental defendan kelima dalam Guaman 580 – Aturan 18 kaedah 19 (1) (b) dan (d) kaedah-kaedah 2012 1 PERLEMBAGAAN PERSEKUTUAN: Pemisahan bidang kuasa Sivil dan Syariah – Bidang kuasa Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah dalam isu pertunangan, perkahwinan, ruju’, perceraian, pembubaran perkahwinan (fasakh), nusyuz, atau pemisahan kehakiman – Keperluan penentuan sama ada sesuatu hal perkara berada di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Sivil atau pun Mahkamah Syariah – Sama ada Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil boleh menentukan isu kesahan perwalian defendan kelima – Artikel 121 (1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan 1 Surat Kuasa Mentadbir: Pentadbir bersama – Tanggungjawab – Sama ada berlaku pemecahan tugas – Sama ada terdapat alasan mencukupi untuk surat kuasa mentadbir boleh dibatalkan atau dipinda – Sama ada defendan-defendan gagal melaksanakan tugas sebagai pentadbir bersama bagi estet Si mati – Sama ada hartanah HSD 68607 PT 7816 Mukim Rawang, Gombak adalah sebahagian dari aset Si mati – Sama ada defendan-defendan berhak menuntut daripada estet Si mati perbelanjaan yang telah dibayar oleh defendan-defendan dalam pemerolehan hartanah dan pembayaran hutang-hutang Si mati – Sama ada pembayaran hutang waris Si mati yang dijelaskan oleh defendan-defendan boleh ditolak dari bahagian waris tersebut dari estet Si mati – Seksyen 34 Akta Probate dan Pentadbiran 1959 1 O18 – validity of Power of Attorney – loan agreement – limitation – Money Lending transaction - fraud and unlawful and/or lawful conspiracy to injure – application allowed 1 1. Two siblings. Three estates. One continuing family dispute. 1 2. The Plaintiff and Defendant in the present case are siblings who have, for some time, been embroiled in disputes concerning the estates of their late father, late mother, and late brother. 1 3. The present proceedings concern matters arising from the estate of their late mother. Disputes relating to the other two estates are presently pending before different courts. 4. From the record, it appears that the parties had at one stage sought to achieve a global settlement encompassing all suits pending before the various courts. Those efforts, however, were ultimately unsuccessful. This Court must therefore now determine the issues arising in the present proceedings. 1 The Applications Before this Court 1 5. The applications presently before this Court are two in number. 1 6. The first is Enclosure 47, which is the Plaintiff’s application to vary and set aside certain terms of the Consent Judgment previously recorded, as reflected in Enclosure 46. 1 7. The second is Enclosure 68, being the Plaintiff’s application for leave to file the Affidavit in Reply out of time. This application was filed on 14 June 2024 following a change of solicitors. 1 BICARA PENUH: Tuntutan plaintif berkisar tentang penawaran sebahagian tanah Lot 9 Plot B-3-6, Batu 2 ½, Jalan Cheras Kuala Lumpur (dirujuk sebagai Lot 9) oleh defendan pertama kepada plaintif untuk perniagaan kereta terpakai. Plaintif bersetuju dan telah membuat beberapa kali pembayaran wang untuk tempahan, deposit sewa dan kos bagi kerja-kerja ubahsuai kepada defendan pertama dan defendan keempat yang keseluruhan berjumlah RM177,300.00 selain bayaran RM1,440.00 sebagai duti setem bagi Perjanjian Kontrak Perkhidmatan yang telah dimasuki oleh plaintif dengan defendan ketiga pada 1.7.2023 – Selepas mengambil milikan kosong Lot 9 tersebut daripada defendan-defendan, plaintif telah menerima notis untuk mengosongkan tanah daripada Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan (PTGWP) bertarikh 17.8.2023 yang menyatakan plaintif menduduki tanah tanpa kebenaran dan menuntut plaintif memulangkan milikan kosong selain tanah tersebut telah disewakan oleh PTGWP kepada pihak ketiga – Tanpa menunggu penjelasan dan tindakan lanjut daripada defendan-defendan, plaintif telah pergi ke pejabat PTGWP dan mendapatkan makluman bahawa defendan-defendan tidak mempunyai hak yang sah atas Lot 9 tersebut – Plaintif menuntut defendan-defendan telah berkonspirasi dengan niat jahat mendorong plaintif membayar wang kepada defendan-defendan sehingga menyebabkan plaintif mengalami kerugian. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG TORT: Pernyataan Tuntutan plaintif memplidkan fakta defendan pertama mengurus sebidang tanah dikenali Lot 9, Plot B-3-6, Batu 2 ½ Jalan Cheras, Kuala Lumpur – Lot 9 yang disewakan oleh PTP kepada defendan keempat adalah merujuk kepada sebahagian Lot 9 yang terletak diantara kawasan 53 dan 56 yang ditunjukkan melalui kawasan berlorek dalam Pelan Rajah 1 dan tidak termasuk kawasan Lot 9 (53 dan 56) – Kawasan yang dinyatakan dalam Notis pengosongan adalah Lot 9 (53) – Sama ada representasi defendan pertama kepada plaintif bahawa defendan pertama mengurus tanah tersebut dan plaintif berhak menduduki tanah tersebut adalah dibuat secara frod – Sama ada plaintif telah membuat bayaran kepada defendan pertama dan keempat berjumlah RM177,300 untuk tujuan penggunaan tanah tersebut atas dorongan defendan pertama dan representasi tersebut – Sama ada defendan ketiga telah bersesama dan/atau secara berasingan dengan defendan pertama memasuki Perjanjian Kontrak Perkhidmatan dengan plaintif dan membuat representasi frod kepada plaintif bahawa ia mampu untuk menyediakan tanah tersebut untuk kegunaan plaintif dan plaintif berhak untuk menduduki tanah tersebut – Sama ada defendan pertama telah menyebabkan defendan ketiga dan keempat digunakan sebagai entiti untuk menipu plaintif memasuki Perjanjian Kontrak Perkhidmatan dan seterusnya untuk menerima wang daripada plaintif berbangkit daripada pengunaan tanah tersebut. 1 Three applications by the Defendants to strike out the Plaintiff’s writ and statement of claim pursuant to Order 18, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. All three applications are allowed, and the Plaintiff’s action is struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 as against the 3rd, 5th and 9th Defendants, with costs of RM5000 to each Defendant. 1 PENGURUSAN KES: Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan dibatalkan pada 1.12.2025 berdasarkan Aturan 34 Kaedah 2(3) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012 – Mahkamah telah memberi arahan berkaitan pemfailan dokumen pra bicara semasa sesi Pengurusan Kes dan tarikh perbicaraan telah ditetapkan – Arahan Mahkamah dipersetujui oleh peguam cara bagi kedua-dua pihak – Selanjutnya permohonan interlokutori di bawah Aturan 14 KKM 2012 telah ditetapkan untuk pendengaran – Semasa tarikh pendengaran, peguam cara plaintif mencadangkan supaya isu undang-undang diputuskan bersama dengan isu fakta selepas perbicaraan penuh dan dipersetujui oleh peguam cara defendan - Mahkamah menerima hasrat pihak-pihak dan sekali lagi mengingatkan supaya kesemua dokumen pra perbicaraan difailkan pada atau sebelum 30.11.2025 dan tarikh Pengurusan Kes pada 1.12.2025 dikekalkan – Pihak-pihak gagal memfailkan dokumen-dokumen pra bicara kecuali Ikatan Pliding dengan alasan terlibat dengan kes di Mahkamah Pembinaan yang melibatkan pihak-pihak yang sama – Peguam cara plaintif memohon masa untuk melengkapkan dokumen-dokumen dan tidak menjelaskan alasan kegagalan pematuhan arahan pra bicara walau pun tempoh enam bulan telah diberikan oleh Mahkamah. TATACARA SIVIL: Pengurusan Kes pra bicara boleh diarahkan oleh Mahkamah - Perspektif baharu dalam peranan proaktif Mahkamah semasa pengurusan kes bagi memastikan kelancaran dalam pendengaran dan pelupusan kes di Mahkamah - Aturan 34 KKM 2012. 1 Enclosure 32 is the 2nd and 3rd Defendant’s (D2 and D3) application to expunge/strike out Plaintiff’s affidavits in reply (enclosures 26 and 30) to D2 and D3’s Notice of Applications for security for cost (enclosure 7) and application under O14A (enclosure 20). Enclosure 32 is dismissed with costs. 1 BICARA PENUH: Tuntutan oleh plaintif-plaintif untuk mendapatkan semula pemilikan satu unit kedai pejabat dua tingkat yang beralamat di No. 16, Jalan Sungai Burung U32/U, Bukit Rimau, Seksyen 32, 40460 Shah Alam, Selangor yang terletak di bawah hakmilik H.S.(D) 138132 PT 135592, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan yang dijual oleh defendan pertama kepada defendan kedua – Hartanah tersebut merupakan harta sepencarian plaintif pertama dan defendan pertama – Plaintif pertama memindahmilik hartanah tersebut kepada defendan pertama bagi melaksanakan perintah yang diperoleh melalui Petisyen Perceraian di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam pada 27.12.2012 untuk dipegang atas amanah bagi kepentingan anak dalam perkahwinan sehingga berumur 18 tahun dengan amanah dipegang oleh plaintif kedua dan defendan pertama – Amanah atas hartanah tidak didaftarkan di pejabat tanah – Defendan pertama telah menjual hartanah tersebut kepada defendan kedua dengan balasan berharga – Hartanah dicagarkan oleh defendan kedua kepada Public Bank Berhad (PBB) dan PBB tidak dijadikan pihak dalam tindakan ini – Defendan pertama gagal hadir sepanjang prosiding dari mula Guaman difailkan. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Penyampaian kertas kausa telah disempurnakan kepada defendan pertama secara penyampaian ganti selaras dengan Perintah Penyampaian Ganti bertarikh 14 Februari 2024 – Sama ada ketidakhadiran defendan pertama sepanjang masa material membawa sebarang kesan di sisi undang-undang - Aturan 35 kaedah 1 dan 2 , Aturan 1A, Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG INSOLVENSI: Plaintif pertama seorang yang bankrap – Sama ada plaintif pertama mempunyai locus standi untuk memulakan dan/atau mengekalkan tindakan di sini tanpa sanksi terdahulu – Seksyen 38 (1)(a) Akta Insolvensi 1967. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Defendan kedua diakui oleh plaintif-plaintif sebagai pihak yang telah ditipu oleh defendan pertama kerana perintah dikri nisi tidak diketahui oleh defendan kedua – Defendan kedua dinamakan sebagai pihak atas dasar defendan kedua merupakan tuan punya berdaftar hartanah – Amanah tidak didaftarkan dan defendan kedua tiada notis mengenai kewujudan amanah – Sama ada terdapat kecuaian dan/atau tipuan / fraud yang dilakukan oleh defendan pertama dalam urusan pindahmilik hartanah tersebut kepada defendan kedua – Sama ada Public Bank Berhad yang merupakan pemegang gadaian Hartanah tersebut turut menikmati hakmilik tidak disangkal ke atas Hartanah tersebut – Seksyen 344, Seksyen 340, subseksyen 340(2)(a) Kanun Tanah Negara. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Plaintif kedua memasukkan kaveat pada 19 September 2023 iaitu selepas pindah milik tersebut didaftarkan pada 23 Mei 2023 – Sama ada plaintif kedua mempunyai kepentingan untuk dikaveatkan atas hartanah tersebut dan adakah kaveat telah didaftarkan secara salah – Seksyen 327 dan s.329 Kanun Tanah Negara. 1 BA-22NCvC-468-11/2024 DIRK INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION: Mareva Injunction - Claim for all dues under the trade investment programme known as Retirement Planner and Consultants - Whether the plaintiffs have a good arguable case against the defendant – Whether the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction – Whether there was a real risk of dissipation of the defendant’s assets before judgment. 1 Aturan 18 – pembatalan - kesan kepada satu Penghakiman Persetujuan yang direkodkan antara kedua-dua belah pihak, mengikat atas terma yang dipersetujui - kegagalan Plaintif menimbulkan tuntutan yang timbul dari naratif yang sama pada masa Guaman 32 menjadikan ia kini dihalang oleh prinsip res judicata – permohonan dibenarkan. 1 CONTRACT: Sale and supply agreement of gloves – Claim rescission and damages – Privity of contract – Agency - Negligent and/or fraudulent misrepresentation - Non-conformance with specifications - Invoice discrepancy - Failure to conduct inspection as envisaged under the contract - Sale of Goods Act 1957 - Goods bought by description - Implied condition - Whether the gloves supplied is of merchantable quality or fit for purpose– Lifting of corporate veil – Admissibility of documents – Negotiations privilege waived by conduct – Sections 73A(2) and 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 1 Lampiran 12 adalah permohonan Defendan untuk membatalkan Penyataan Tuntutan Plaintif di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM). Kes ini sesuai di batalkan secara terus dibawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 KKM. Permohonan Defendan-Defendan di Lampiran 12 dibenarkan. 1 Civil procedure — Striking out — Whether claim plainly unsustainable in law — Order 18 r 19 Rules of Court 2012 Company law — Winding up — Sale and purchase agreements executed after presentation of winding-up petition — Whether void ab initio — Absence of validation order Limitation — Action founded on contract — Six-year limitation period — Whether claim time-barred — Section 6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 — Alleged fraud — Whether sufficient to invoke section 29 Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement of strict pleading and particulars — Whether triable issues disclosed 1 The Defendant filed two applications via Enclosure 24, for summary judgment of the counterclaim to be recorded pursuant to O14 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) and Enclosure 26, to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claim in accordance with Order 18 Rule 19 of the ROC. Both applications were allowed with a cost of RM5000 each to the Defendant, subject to the allocator. Plaintiff’s claim is struck out, and the Defendant’s counterclaim is summarily recorded as prayed for. 1 Plaintiff’s claim premised on fraud-Resettlement scheme for squatters embarked upon by Selangor State Government to develop Bukit Botak- D1 was offered Lot 1593-D1 then entered into a SPA with deceased to sell Lot 1593-deceased fully paid the purchase price- Lot 1593 was subsequently changed to Lot 1396-D1 entered into a SPA with PKNS (representing the Selangor State Government) to purchase Lot 1396 on which a house was to be built-D1 paid a deposit only-when deceased came to know of the SPA entered into by D1 with PKNS, he entered a caveat-Plaintiff as executor of estate of deceased sued for specific performance of the SPA entered with deceased-PKNS also sought for an order against PKNS that the Plot 1396 be sold to the Plaintiff-whether fraud proven on the facts-whether maxim nemo dat quod non habet applicable-D1 had no title/interest/right at material time in Plot 1593 as he was only given an offer- whether contract between deceased and D1 is void as against public policy as deceased was not eligible for the resettlement scheme-section 24 (e) of Contracts Act- whether D1 should be ordered to return the purchase price received from deceased. 1 CONTRACT: Breach of contract - Fraud - Conspiracy to injure – Contract for glove supplies – Quality of the gloves ordered and supplied - Whether Plaintiff was supplied what it had ordered - Whether fraud was perpetrated by the Defendants - Whether there was a conspiracy between Defendants - Whether corporate veil should be lifted - Counterclaim for balance payment and commissions - Admissibility of documents - Section 73A(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 1 Mahkamah ini mendapati dalam mengaplikasikan prinsip undang-undang dalam kes Yamaha Motor ianya perlu dipakai dengan adil dalam memutuskan mengenai pindaan kepada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan. Berdasarkan itu, Mahkamah ini membenarkan permohonan pindaan kepada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif. 1 Section 21 SMA 2013, Section 21 SMA 2013, whether committee member of JMB can hold office de facto - misappropriation of funds - SMA, social legislation. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG TORT: Pencerobohan dan kacau-ganggu di premois sewaan Plaintif − Berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi Plaintif dan rakaman video CCTV, Plaintif berjaya membuktikan kausa tindakan terhadap Defendan-Defendan − Kuantum ganti rugi bagi tort pencerobohan Premis tersebut boleh dinilai dan tidak perlu dibuat taksiran ganti rugi dan juga jumlah kerugian yang telah dialami oleh Plaintif dapat dipertimbangkan secara terus − Elemen penting dalam menentukan bahawa Defendan-Defendan melakukan pencerobohan dan kacau-ganggu adalah pemilikan adalah tidak tepat − Plaintif tidak melanggar perjanjian sewaan, dsb. 1 WASIAT: Tuntutan oleh wasi terhadap defendan, isteri Si mati untuk pengesahan wasiat – Plaintif berusia 8 tahun semasa Si mati mewasiatkan hartanah kepada plaintif – Defendan telah memperoleh Surat Kuasa Mentadbir bagi harta pusaka Si mati – Plaintif memohon membatalkan Surat Kuasa Mentadbir - Sama ada wasiat Si mati bertarikh 11.8.2004 sah dan berkuatkuasa – Saksi terhadap wasiat memberi keterangan Si mati sihat dan waras semasa menandatangani wasiat dihadapan saksi-saksi – Defendan tidak mencabar kewarasan Si mati semasa wasiat ditandatangani – Seksyen 3, 4 dan 5 Akta Wasiat 1959 1 KETERANGAN: Beban bukti – dokumen yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang supaya diakusaksi – Defendan mengesahkan dan tidak membantah tandatangan Si mati dalam wasiat – Seksyen 101(1) dan 68 Akta Keterangan 1950 1 1. There are two diametrically opposing applications before this Court. In Enclosure 10, the Plaintiff applies for summary judgment pursuant to Order 81 of the Rules of Court 2012. Conversely, in Enclosure 31, the Defendant seeks to strike out the Plaintiff’s pleadings pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b), and/or (d) of the same Rules. 1 2. The Plaintiff’s cause of action is premised on the assertion that the Defendant had failed and/or refused to respond to or execute the Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) as required under the terms of the Agreement, including within the Extended Period of 14 working days. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks specific performance of the said SPA. In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks forfeiture of the earnest deposit, together with liquidated ascertained damages and other consequential reliefs. 1 3. The central issues before this Court are: 1 1. Whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the legal threshold for the granting of summary judgment; and 1 2. Whether the Defendant has met the legal threshold for the striking out of the Plaintiff’s pleadings. 1 Full trial – Dispute over property – Plaintiff claims specific performance to compel defendant to transfer the property to plaintiff – Whether defendant can be absolved from his contractual obligation under the sale and purchase agreement because he purportedly did not know what he was signing – Whether defendant’s signature on the transfer documents was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation – Whether plaintiff breached the terms of the agreement by failing to pay the deposit upon execution of the agreement – If so, whether the agreement was void as a result of such a breach. 1 The present Notice of Application, encapsulated in Enclosure 16 and filed by the First, Second and Third Defendants, does not seek to determine the substantive rights of the parties in respect of the claims made in the main action. Rather, it concerns a procedural question: whether this suit ought to be consolidated with an earlier suit commenced approximately one month prior in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur. 1 To the lay observer, the outcome of this application may seem of limited consequence, as the respective rights and liabilities of the parties will ultimately be adjudicated regardless of whether the suits proceed separately or together. However, the question raised in Enclosure 16 bears significant implications for the effective administration of civil justice. It engages core considerations of judicial economy, the avoidance of duplicative proceedings, and the minimisation of costs and delay for both the Court and the litigants. 1 The singular and central issue in the present application is whether this is an appropriate case for this Court to exercise its discretion to order the transfer of the present Suit No. BA-22NCvC-515-12/2024 (“Suit 515”) to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, and for it to be consolidated with Suit No. WA-22NCC-768-11/2024 (“Suit 768”), pursuant to Order 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 1. The Plaintiff, having obtained a default judgment in the sum of RM1,200,000.00 against the Defendant, initiated garnishee proceedings in respect of the Defendant’s bank accounts maintained with CIMB Bank Berhad (“CIMB Bank”) and Malayan Banking Berhad (“Maybank”). The present application is brought by the Plaintiff, in its capacity as the Judgment Creditor, seeking for the Garnishee Order Nisi issued against CIMB Bank and Maybank to be made absolute. 1 2. Both Maybank and CIMB Bank have confirmed that the Defendant holds bank accounts with available funds. However, the garnishee banks have also informed the Plaintiff that they are unable to release the said funds due to the existence of a Freezing Order and a Seizure Order issued by the Public Prosecutor under sections 44 and 50(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (“AMLA”). 1 Prevailing Issue 1 3. The central issue in the present application is whether the Defendant’s bank accounts remain subject to a valid and subsisting Freezing and Seizure Orders, and whether such orders continue to be in effect as at the date of this hearing. 1 This case presents a scenario that strikes at the heart of every registered landowner’s worst fears: the sudden discovery that their title or interest in land has vanished. Here, the Plaintiff seeks to reclaim an interest in the form of a charge. The Plaintiff alleges that its interest has been compromised through a series of fraudulent dealings. The land that was charged to the Plaintiff was discovered to have been discharged and transferred to another party. It did not stop there. The said land was further encumbered, with other attempts to transfer the land and to secure a loan from unsuspecting third parties. In the wake of this scheme, a trail of innocent victims is left to bear the consequences orchestrated by the perpetrator(s). 1 The central issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the various reliefs sought against the ten Defendants the Plaintiff has named in this suit. 1 In resolving this primary question, the Court must also consider the competing rights of the Plaintiff as weighed against those of the ten Defendants involved. 1 1. The present suit was instituted by the Plaintiff company against three Defendants for the restitution and recovery of monies alleged to have been wrongfully received. 2. These payments, made by the Plaintiff company, were authorised by its then director, Kerk Han Meng. What lends this case its distinctive complexion is that the First, Second, and Third Defendants are, respectively, Kerk’s wife, son, and mother-in-law. Of further significance is that the accounts and records of the Plaintiff company disclose a similar pattern of payments of salaries or allowances to another director’s family members, namely, his ex-wife, son, and mother. However, the Plaintiff company has not prosecuted a claim against the other director’s ex-wife, son and mother. 1 3. The Plaintiff contended that these payments were without legal basis and must be restored. The Defendants, however, stood firm in their defence, insisting that the sums were lawfully paid and lawfully received. In any event, it was also contended by the Defendants that the claims are time barred. At its core, the contest is whether these familial transactions were legitimate dealings, or whether they amount to an unjust depletion of the Plaintiff’s assets, leaving its claim, if proven, with compelling merit. 1 The Plaintiff, who is the administratrix of her late father’s estate, has a valid grievance in commencing the present action. The Plaintiff’s late father, through a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 2 March, 2000 bought a house from the 1st Defendant for the sum of RM92,000.00. 1 To partially finance the purchase, the Plaintiff’s late father obtained a loan from the 2nd Defendant in the sum of RM25,000.00, with an additional RM463.00 imposed for takaful charges. The agreed repayment period was 15 years, with monthly instalments of RM245.00. By a letter dated 4 May 2018, the 2nd Defendant informed the Plaintiff’s late father that the loan had been fully settled and invited him to meet with the bank to discuss the release of the original title to the house. 1 To date, the title remained in the name of the vendor, namely the 1st Defendant, prompting the Plaintiff to commence the present action in seeking for the title of the house to be registered in the Plaintiff’s name. The Plaintiff has named two Defendants, Radzali bin Ahmad Koldi (the vendor) and Maybank Islamic Berhad (the lender) as the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively. 1 This decision concerns a Notice of Application in Enclosure 12, that is, the 2nd Defendant’s application for the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim against it to be struck out pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 The predominant issue is whether this is a proper case for this Court to exercise it discretion to strike out the Plaintiff Amended Statement of Claim against the 2nd Defendant. 1 Striking out – Suit against employees of statutory body for alleged tort of misrepresentation – Immunity from suit - Cause of action not complete – The sum claimed for damages is the amount allegedly expended in performing obligations under the Agreement - No nexus between the sum claimed and the alleged tort - Sections 31 and 34A of the Universiti Teknologi MARA Act 1976 - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 1 TORT: Kecuaian perubatan – Liabiliti – Kewajipan berhati-hati – Kemungkiran oleh Deefendan-Defendan – Plaintif/pesakit mengalami kecederaan dan keretakan pada radius dan ulna di pergelangan tangan kiri – Sama ada rawatan, jagaan, pengurusan dan pembedahan dijalankan dengan berhati-hati dan mengikut piawaian perubatan– Sama ada doktor ortopedik gagal memberitahu mengenai opsyen bagi rawatan? − Sama ada doktor ortopedik mengamalkan rawatan semasa dan diterima? − Sama ada doktor ortopedik khilaf dari konteks tidak menzahirkan maklumat penuh mengenai kecederaan? 1 Striking out - Third party claim – Indemnity clause - Whether the 1st Defendant has relinquished all duty of care on execution of the SPA and Assignment - Whether the 1st Defendant or the third party has a duty of care to the Plaintiff – Whether the developer only responsible to parts where it has exclusive control over - Whether the third party is liable to indemnify the 1st Defendant 1 Ex parte injunction - Bona fide full and frank disclosure - Disclosal of all material facts - Acting with honesty and candour 1 Plaintiff entered into main contract with third party for fabrication of vessel for oil and gas industry-Plaintiff also entered into consortium agreement with 2nd Defendant to perform main contract-1st Defendant appointed Project Manager-main contract terminated due to Plaintiff’s default, Defendants took over the performance of the main contract-Plaintiff’s suit premised on breach of fiduciary duties, tort of inducing breach of contract, breach of contract and tort of interference-court found liability established, ordered for damages to be assessed-Plaintiff claims for loss of income from Daily Charter Rate provided in the main contract, and also the contract to maintain vessel-aggravated damages also sought for-whether damages proven-whether facts and evidence support award of aggravated damages. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery of Documents- documents sought are relevant and necessary- whether the Plaintiff has exhausted or made proper attempts to obtain the documents- abuse of process or a fishing expedition- bank-customer confidentiality- public interest considerations- discovery and banking rules into prospective-Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012)-Delay and conduct of the Plaintiff for non-enforcement or lack of active monitoring of company affairs. 1 Interlocutory injunction - Ad Interim Order – Director access to company records – Court-ordered access - Section 245 Companies Act 2016 1 Fraudulent misrepresentation - proof that false representations were made - proof of actual dishonesty -proof that the plaintiff acted on misrepresentations uttered by one or the other of 2 Defendants - circumstantial evidence - case not met on a balance of probabilities 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory application – Injunction application – Ex-Parte injunction was granted – American Cyanamid test – Whether there are bona fide serious issues to be tried – Whether the damages are inadequate – Balance of convenience lies with the Plaintiff – Inter-parte injunction dismissed – Application to set aside ex-parte Order – Whether there is full and frank disclosure – No undertaking as to damages given – Setting aside ex-parte Order allowed in part – Order 29 Rule 1 (2A) Rules of Court 2012 1 Application for leave to commit Plaintiff for contempt-grounds for committal being interfering with administration of justice-several adjournments at the behest of the Plaintiff causing inconvenience to parties-new counsel informed court that some of the medical certificates tendered for the adjournments not genuine-whether prima facie case for leave demonstrated-adjournments are within the sole and absolute discretion of the court-whether safe to rely on what was informed by counsel. 1 CONTRACT: Recovery of service fee - Whether the Service Agreement is enforceable – Legality of related investment agreement - Deal structure of investment – Whether it is a sham transaction – Whether the service was in fact a brokering of an illegal moneylending arrangement - Moneylending transaction disguised as an investment – True bargain - Loan with exorbitant interest – Rebuttable presumption of moneylending business – Section 10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 – Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory – Striking out – Application to strike out action and part of reply to defence – Whether claim is caught by the statute of limitations – Allegation of fraud – Whether fraud can be raised as a new claim in reply to statement of defence – Res judicata – Issue estoppel - Whether issues raised same as issues determined in earlier suit – Whether present plaintiff ‘privy’ or having ‘privity in interest’ with plaintiffs in earlier suit – Whether res judicata applicable – Section 9 (1) and 29 of the Limitation Act 1953– Order 18 Rule 19 (1) (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Civil Procedure – Interlocutory application – Application for discovery under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Discovery of documents – Plaintiffs sought discovery of documents to substantiate claims of breach of fiduciary duties, breach of "arrangement" and conspiracy to injure – Businesses involving importing, distributing and selling premium motorcycles – Relevancy and necessity of the requested documents for fair disposal of action or for the saving of costs – Requested documents sought are irrelevant and/or unnecessary for resolving core matters in dispute – Application for discovery of documents dismissed – Order 24 Rules 8 and 13 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Civil Procedure – Order 32 r 5 – Hearing in absence – Notice given – Inter partes order. Civil Procedure – Order 32 r 6 – Setting aside ex parte order – Inapplicable where party absent by choice. Natural Justice – Right to be heard – Reasonable opportunity – No breach where party defaults. Adjournment – Medical certificate – Late production – No affidavit – Discretion to refuse. Pleadings – Order 18 r 19 – Striking out – No reasonable cause of action. Amendment – Clerical error – Court heading – Non-prejudicial – Leave to amend. Abuse of Process – Collateral attack – Failure to comply with directions – Proper remedy is appeal. 1 LAND LAW: Strata title - Common property - Allegation of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract - Locus standi of joint management body - Exclusion of Clubhouse and its facilities from the agreements - Supplementary agreement granting purchaser license to use the Clubhouse and club facilities – Whether the Clubhouse is common property - Whether the Clubhouse land was lawfully subdivided and registered to the Developer - Fraudulent pre-contractual misrepresentations – Doctrine of equitable estoppel - Sections 17B and 34 Strata Titles Act 1985 - Sections 7, 21, 27(1), 38, 57 and 143(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 1 Trust property – Proceeds of converted trust property – Claim for recovery of sale proceeds – Trust – Breach of trust – Whether the Defendant is a trustee – Power of Attorney – Revocation of Power of Attorney – Allegation of express trust – Constructive trust – Whether there was a breach – Allegation of failure to account – Allegation of misappropriation of sale proceeds – The Defendant found to be acted in breach of trust – Defence of time limitation – Whether time barred applicable – No limitation for recovery of trust property – Section 22(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1953 1 CONTRACT: Breach of contract – Allegation of deficient performance and third party involvement as breach – No breach proven – Termination of contract – Whether contract can be terminated – No complaint of performance-related basis – Different reasons for termination - Contract unlawfully terminated 1 TORT: Deceit – Fraudulent misrepresentation – Pre-contractual misrepresentations – Liability – Evaluation on the minutes of meeting and witness testimonies – Misrepresentation not proven 1 DAMAGES: Special damages – General damages – Claim of wasted expenses in the performance of the contract and loss of profit – Mutually exclusive measures of loss 1 Civil Procedural - Amendment application - struck out as primary action struck out and dismissed for non-compliance with order to furnish further and better particulars - self-executing order. 1 Plaintiff appointed a sub-contractor for project by the Ministry of Heath-Defendant terminated the appointment on ground of abandonment of works-termination alleged to be wrongful-claim for damages-value of work done extinguished by advance payments which far exceeded the value of work done up to date of termination-whether other claims by Plaintiff proven by evidence adduced-whether in the absence of proof as to loss, nominal damages can be awarded- Defendant counterclaims for costs of completion of works done by third party and overpayment resulting from advance payments-whether costs of completion arise when Defendant is in breach-whether overpayments claimable-costs of the action attributed to plaintiff’s counsel frequent requests for adjournment-whether substantial costs can be claimed 1 PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Notis Permohonan Terpinda oleh defendan kedua, ketiga dan keempat untuk isu undang-undang diputuskan - Hal perkara tuntutan ini berkaitan dengan harta pusaka Ragunathan A/L Munisamy (Si mati) telah meninggal dunia pada 22.1.2020 – Ibu kandungan plaintif-plaintif iaitu defendan pertama telah memperolehi probet bagi harta pusaka Si mati setelah Tindakan antara defendan pertama dengan defendan kedua, ketiga dan keempat diselesaikan melalui mediasi dalam Guaman BA-22NCVC-293-07/2021 (Guaman 293) di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam – Plaintif kedua hadir bersama defendan pertama semasa sesi mediasi Guaman 293 – Defendan kedua merupakan saudara kandung Si mati manakala defendan ketiga dan keempat adalah bapa dan ibu Si mati – Plaintif-plaintif bukan pihak dalam Guaman 293 – Sama ada wujud keadaan khas yang membolehkan Mahkamah Tinggi mengetepikan Perintah Persetujuan yang direkodkan oleh defendan pertama dan defendan kedua dalam Guaman 293 – Sama ada plaintif-plaintif yang merupakan waris Si mati namun bukan pihak dalam Guaman 293 mempunyai locus standi mencabar Perintah Persetujuan yang dimasuki antara defendan pertama dan kedua – Sama ada isu kesahan wasiat Si mati yang diputuskan secara persetujuan antara defendan pertama dan kedua menjadi muktamad dan mengikat waris-waris Si mati – Aturan 14A Kaedah 1 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Seksyen 34 Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959. 1 Interlocutory Application: Application by the plaintiff to strike out the affidavits filed by and on behalf of the proposed intervenor, Heung A Line Co Ltd – The affidavit in support filed by the solicitors of the proposed intervener exhibited a copy of an unsworn affidavit of the proposed intervener – Sijil Perakuan for the exhibits in the affidavit in support filed by the solicitors of the proposed intervener was not attested – The intervener is delayed in filing the affidavit – Order 32 Rules 13(2)(a) of the Rules of 2012. 1 Application to re-amend the Amended Statement of Claim – to assert additional paragraph to clarify the cause of action – application made after counterclaim by Defendant – Application dismissed -not bona fide – seek to import Plaintiff’s defence to counter claim into the main claim – to cure defects and deficiencies – injustice to Defendant – Plaintiff admitted the facts was already pleaded in the main action - To allow the Plaintiff to go back and insert the said clarification to the main pleading (Statement of Claim) would result in the Defendant being allowed to re-file their defence, and most probably it would affect their counterclaim as well - it would be prejudicial to the Defendant if this Court were to allow Plaintiff to re-do their pleading in answer to the alleged deficiencies. 1 KETERANGAN: Beban pembuktian – Atas imbangan keberangkalian – Defendan tidak menafikan membuat penyataan didakwa fitnah. FITNAH: Saman Fitnah – Elemen menentukan penyataan bersifat fitnah – Penerbitan penyataan fitnah melalui media sosial - Pembelaan – Justifikasi terhadap penyataan didakwa memfitnah – Penyataan dibuat didalam keadaan marah dan tertekan – Tuntutan dibenarkan. 1 Defamation - Transfer of proceedings from High Court to Sessions Court - Current trend for award of damages in defamation 1 Tort - Defamation - Libel - Allegation of defamatory posts and article - Whether the publications referred to the Plaintiffs – Whether the publications lead reasonable people who know the Plaintiffs to the conclusion that the Publications refer to them - Whether the publication is capable of bearing the pleaded imputations - Defective pleading - Whether defendants succeeded in proving defences of justification and fair comment 1 1. Bukanlah satu keterlaluan untuk menyatakan bahawa kenyataan/penerbitan yang dipertikaikan dan menjadi subjek tuntutan fitnah ini adalah “amat menjijikkan”. 2. Namun demikian, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab Mahkamah ini untuk membuat penentuan berlandaskan kes yang telah difailkan serta diplidkan, menurut isu-isu di hadapan Mahkamah ini dan berdasarkan kepada fakta dan keterangan yang telah dikemukakan. Isu-isu untuk Penentuan oleh Mahkamah 3. Persoalan pertama ialah sama ada kenyataan/penerbitan yang dipertikaikan dan menjadi subjek tuntutan fitnah ini merupakan fitnah mengikut prinsip undang-undang yang matang dan yang telah ditetapkan oleh undang-undang kes sebelum ini. 4. Sekiranya jawapan kepada persoalan di atas adalah negatif, maka Plaintif telah gagal dalam tuntutan beliau. 5. Akan tetapi, sekiranya Plaintif telah bejaya dalam membuktikan ujudnya elemen-elemen untuk suatu kausa tindakan fitnah, persoalan atau isu kedua ialah sama ada Defendan dapat bergantung kepada mana-mana satu daripada pembelaan yang diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang. 6. Sekiranya jawapan kepada persoalan ini adalah ya, maka tuntutan oleh Plaintif juga akan ditolak oleh Mahkamah. 7. Akan tetapi, sekiranya Defendan gagal membangkitkan mana-mana pembelaan yang telah ditetapkan di bawah undang-undang fitnah, maka tuntutan Plaintif akan dianggap sebagai telah berjaya. 8. Persoalan atau isu pertama dan kedua adalah berkaitan dengan penentuan aspek liabiliti. 9. Sekiranya Plaintif telah berjaya dari segi atau aspek liabiliti, persoalan dan isu seterusnya adalah mengenai aspek kuantum yang layak diawadkan kepada beliau. 10. Undang-Undang serta prinsip yang terpakai untuk aspek kuantum juga merupakan undang-undang matang. Penentuan isu atau soalan ini akan bergantung semata-mata terhadap fakta kes ini serta keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini. 1 1. It is a matter of common experience that public utility construction works often cause inconvenience to the general public, whether by way of traffic diversions, congestion, or other disruptions. Such inconveniences are frequently compounded where the works are prolonged or delayed. 2. In the present case, the Plaintiffs have instituted proceedings against the Defendants, alleging that construction activities carried out along the road adjacent to their shop lots caused undue interference with their business operations. They claim that the disruption resulting from the works led to damage to their properties, a loss of tenants and, consequently, financial losses. The Plaintiffs seek reliefs on the basis of nuisance and economic harm allegedly sustained due to the Defendants’ conduct. 3. It falls upon this Court to make a determination as to whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to reliefs sought based on the evidence before the court and on established legal principles. 1 Medical Negligence: Full trial - The plaintiff is the Finance Manager of TNB Repair & Maintenance Sdn Bhd - The defendant is a Consultant General Surgeon practising at KPJ Selangor Specialist Centre (KPJ Selangor) - The defendant failed to conduct a cholangiogram after removing the biliary stent during the procedure - After biliary stent removal on 23 August 2017, the defendant did not perform regular follow-ups for the plaintiff, including liver function tests and abdominal ultrasounds - If a cholangiogram or follow-up had been done, the plaintiff’s stricture would have been diagnosed sooner and treated with endoscopic procedures instead of riskier open surgery. 1 Whether the defendant’s decision to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy on 25 May 2017 was clinically justified - Whether the sequence of postoperative investigations (ERCP prior to MRCP) constituted a breach of the standard of care - Whether a cholangiogram was necessary following the second operation done by the defendant following the removal of the stent - Whether the discharge of the plaintiff on 8.9.2017 with not to return (PRN) when necessary was an appropriate standard of care - Whether the standard of care provided by the defendant fell below what is expected of a reasonably competent general surgeon. 1 "Libel, tort of Defamation, Publication, Defamatory intent, Defence of Qualified Privilege, express malice" 1 TATACARA CIVIL: Prosiding penghinaan Mahkamah − Fitnah siber melalui penerbitan di TikTok − Sama ada Defendan melanggar Perintah Injunksi Interim dan Perintah Injunksi Ad Interim? − Prinsip undang-undang yang relevan mengenai ketidakpatuhan kepada Perintah Mahkamah − Sama ada Defendan dikomitkan kepada pemenjaraan dan pengenaan denda − Tujuan dan ujian bagi “law of contempt” − Penetapan perbicaraan penuh demi memastikan status quo pihak-pihak tidak terjejas − Mahkamah hendaklah berhati-hati kerana permohonan ini melibatkan kebebasan asasi Defendan. 1 LAND LAW: Whether the alleged trespassed lands belong to the Plaintiffs or vested in the State Authority – Ownership of river and river reserve area – The absence of entry of a memorial on the title does not deny substantive right of the state authority over the land – Section 46, 49, 353, 382A of the National Land Code 1965 – Section 104 of the National Land Code (Amendment) Act No A587 of 1984 – Section 3 of the Waters Act 1920 – Section 2 of the Selangor Water Management Authority Enactment 1999 1 TORT: Trespass to land – Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ activity of river sand mining and extraction trespass the Plaintiffs’ lands – Whether there was trespass on Plaintiffs’ lands – Whether the Plaintiffs have rightful/exclusive possession over the alleged trespassed lands – Whether the Plaintiffs have locus standi to initiate this action – No actionable trespass proven – No damages proven 1 TORT: Negligence – Allegation that sand mining activities was negligently being carried out and caused damage to the Plaintiffs’ lands – Whether the Defendants’ owed duty of care to the Plaintiffs – Whether there is a breach of duty of care – Whether the Defendant failed to comply with river sand mining regulations and permit conditions – No sufficient evidence of non-compliance – No breach of duty of care proven 1 CIVIL LAW: Indemnity claim – Relationship between permit holder and contractor – Whether a principal-agent relationship – Principal is not responsible for any tort committed by an independent contractor – Counterclaim – Not properly pleaded or proved 1 BICARA: Tuntutan oleh plaintif berasaskan perjanjian lesen yang tidak sah yang dimasuki oleh plaintif dengan defendan pertama kerana terma dan syarat yang terkandung adalah penyerupai terma perjanjian francais. Defendan pertama tidak berdaftar di bawah Akta Francais 1998 – Sama ada Perjanjian Lesen adalah satu perjanjian francais dan terbatal atau tidak sah kerana melanggar Akta Francais 1998 – Sama ada defendan-defendan bertanggungan memulangkan jumlah pelaburan dan pembayaran plaintif di bawah perjanjian tersebut atau perniagaan di bawah francais Chun Yang Tea sebanyak RM980,673.88 secara bersesama atau berasingan – Seksyen 4(c) Akta Francais 1998. 1 KONTRAK: Salahnyataan – Sama ada wujud salahnyataan atau salahnyataan frod oleh defendan-defendan terhadap plaintif – Wujud persetujuan bebas pihak-pihak untuk berada dalam ikatan perniagaan sebagaimana dizahirkandalam perjanjian lesen – Fikiran terkemudian plaintif selepas pendapatan merudum selepas plaintif berpindah lokasi perniagaan – Seksyen 8 Akta Kontrak 1950. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti Beban bukti – Seksyen 101 dan 103 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 The present matter relates to the Plaintiffs’ application in Enclosure 31. The said application in Enclosure 31 was made pursuant to Order 33 rules 2, 3 and 5 of the Rules of Court 2012. In that said application, the Plaintiffs sought to have the following 4 main Questions determined under Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012. (A) Whether the doctrines of estoppel, res judicata, multiplicity of proceedings, suing by instalments and unjust enrichment preclude the Plaintiffs from bringing this claim; (B) Based on the inter partes Order dated 7.9.2017, whether the movable assets detailed in the Defendant’s Resolution Notice dated 21.1.2015 which was located at the Factory belongs to the Plaintiffs; (C) Whether the Defendant is bound by the terms of the ex parte Order dated 5.7.2017 and the inter partes Order dated 7.9.2017; and (D) Whether the Defendant has violated the terms of the ex parte Order dated 5.7.2017 and the inter partes Order dated 7.9.2017. 1 Limitation — Tort — s.6(1)(a) Limitation Act — One-day late filing — s.29 concealment — Whether referral letter withheld — Discovery during custody proceedings — Fact-sensitive issue. Medical Negligence — Psychiatric referral letter — Issued without examination — Breach of duty — Need for viva voce evidence. Confidentiality — Medical records — Disclosure without consent — MMC confidentiality rules — Letter given to husband — Whether wrongful disclosure. Vicarious Liability — Clinic operator — Relationship between D1 and D2 — Control and integration — Triable issue. Abuse of Process — Late service — No mala fides — Serious allegations — Not frivolous or vexatious. 1 TORT: Defamation – Elements of Defamation – Whether the Defamatory Statements was published – Defamatory statements via Whatsapp – Whether a show cause and termination letter can be considered as defamatory. Claim Dismissed. EVIDENCE: Burden of proof – Balance of Probabilities – Witness Statements filed without knowledge of witness. 1 Interim Injunction - Defamation - Plaintiff has not met the threshold requirements for granting an interim injunction - the articles published were not posted out of thin air or out of bad intention or malice by the Defendants. There was documentary evidence to support the narrative. Whether it was wrongly construed or understood, the basis was there - the application was dismissed. 1 TORT: Defamation – Libel – Whether the Facebook post and Telegram chat are defamatory of the Plaintiff – Whether the letter of demand shared in Telegram defamed the Defendant – Whether it was the Plaintiff who published the letter of demand to Telegram - Burden of proof – Damages - Factors to consider in assessing compensatory damages - The gravity, influence and effect of the Facebook post to the Plaintiff – Subsequent conducts - Defendant’s lack of remorse – Non-monetary benefits - Amplification of online influence - Global award of general, aggravated and exemplary damages 1 TORT KECUAIAN: Tuntutan gantirugi terhadap defendan-defendan berikutan kemalangan pada 9.7.2018 yang mengakibatkan plaintif mengalami kecacatan kekal. Defendan pertama dilantik oleh defendan kedua kerja-kerja pengorekan dan pengalihan tanah berdekatan Jalan Pekeliling KM8.4 KLIA. Defendan Kedua adalah anak syarikat milikan penuh defendan ketiga. Defendan Kedua meletakkan penghadang jalan di laluan km 8.4 dan berlaku kemalangan akibat motorsikal yang ditunggang oleh Pihak Ketiga merempuh penghadang tersebut dan mengakibatkan kecederaan kepada plaintif, pembonceng motorsikal – Sama ada plaintif terlibat dalam kemalangan pada 9.7.2018 sebagaimana diplidkan – Sama ada defendan pertama mempunyai tugas berhati-hati dalam memastikan pengguna jalan raya di KM 8.4 atau berhampiran lokasi kerja projek terlindung dari bahaya – Sama ada defendan pertama, kedua dan/atau ketiga cuai dalam meletakkan atau mengendalikan penghadang jalan di Jalan Pekeliling KM 8.4 KLIA dengan tanpa apa-apa amaran atau amaran yang mencukupi – Sama ada defendan kedua dan ketiga mempunyai kawalan dan penyeliaan langsung atau tidak langsung terhadap kerja-kerja defendan pertama - Sama ada defendan kedua dan ketiga bertanggungan terhadap kecuaian defendan pertama – sama ada Pihak Ketiga bertanggungan bersama atau cuai sumbang menyebabkan kemalangan dan kecederaan yang dialami oleh plaintif – Sama ada plaintif membuktikan kerugian dan berhak terhadap ganti rugi am akibat kecederaan trauma otak dan gantirugi khas termasuk kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti terletak di bahu plaintif untuk membuktikan tuntutannya – Seksyen 101 and 103 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 BICARA PENUH: Tuntutan gantirugi akibat kecuian perubatan – Insiden melibatkan kelahiran anak keenam plaintif pada usia plaintif 39 tahun. Mulai awal kehamilan sehingga Disember 2018, plaintif menjalani pemeriksaan antenatal di DBM Klinik & Bersalin di Gombak dan kemudian plaintif dirujuk kepada defendan pertama yang bertugas di hospital defendan ketiga – Kali pertama plaintif dan suami berjumpa defendan pertama pada 7.1.2019 – Pada 11.1.2019, plaintif mengalami kesakitan sehingga air ketuban plaintif pecah. Plaintif dimasukkan ke Hospital defendan ketiga di bawah jagaan defendan pertama. Kesakitan bersalin plaintif berterusan selama kira-kira 5 jam tetapi bayi masih belum dapat dilahirkan – Pada jam 12 tengahari defendan pertama meminta bantuan defendan kedua untuk menjalankan proses kelahiran bayi – Defendan kedua telah cuba menjalankan proses kelahiran secara vakum pada sekitar jam 1.00 petang dan kemudian memberhentikan prosedur tersebut kerana tiada tanda-tanda kepala bayi menurun (no sign of baby's head descending). Keputusan diambil pada jam 1.00 petang untuk plaintif melahirkan bayi melalui pembedahan caesarean – Pembedahan tidak dapat dilakukan sehingga kehadiran pakar anestetik pada jam 1.45 petang dan pada jam 2.05 petang, plaintif melahirkan bayi perempuan yang tidak bernyawa. Selanjutnya plaintif telah dibawa ke Hospital Sungai Buloh untuk rawatan lanjut akibat kecederaan semasa pembedahan – Pembedahan yang dilakukan di Hospital Sungai Buloh telah mengakibatkan sebahagian rahim plaintif dibuang. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG TORT: Sama ada defendan pertama dan kedua telah memecahkan kewajipan berjaga-jaga terhadap plaintif – Sama ada defendan pertama dan/atau kedua melaksanakan segala kemahiran dan penjagaan yang dijangkakan daripada ahli perubatan profesional yang kompeten dalam menjalankan penjagaan dan rawatan kepada plaintif –Sama ada defendan pertama dan kedua cuai dalam mengendalikan proses kelahiran bayi plaintif dengan kemahiran yang wajar – Sama ada ketiadaan defendan pertama di bilik bedah mengecualikan defendan pertama dari tanggungan terhadap liabiliti – Sama ada defendan ketiga mempunyai tugas yang tidak boleh diwakilkan – Sama ada plaintif berhak untuk menuntut ganti rugi-ganti rugi yang berlandaskan dan/ atau yang timbul dari punca kematian bayi plaintif 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: BEBAN BUKTI – Beban pembuktian terletak di bahu plaintif untuk membuktikan kecuaian di pihak defendan-defendan - Seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950 (Akta 56). 1 TORT: Parties are neighbours – Whether the renovation and construction of the wall on top of the existing retaining wall were illegally carried out by the defendant, lacking approval or a permit from the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council, and not in accordance with the specifications provided by the MBPJ – Whether the construction of the wall on top of the existing retaining wall has affected the rights of the plaintiff to lighting and interfered with the plaintiff’s natural rights to the plaintiff’s property – Whether the defendant and/or the defendant’s contractor has trespassed and entered the plaintiff’s property while carrying out the renovation works - Whether the plaintiff has suffered damages and losses due to the construction of the wall by the defendant – Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim for the general damages and special damages for trespass and damages for diminution of market value. 1 EVIDENCE: Admission on issue of illegality – S.18(1) of the Evidence Act 1950. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleading – Pleaded facts – Whether the Court can consider an issue not specified in the Issues to be tried. 1 LOCAL AUTHORITY: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to demand the demolition of the disputed structure without following the procedures specified by the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133), which amounts to an abuse of court process and a collateral challenge – Local Authorities’ powers – Mechanism for the local authority to take action if anyone begins the construction of a building without approval – Definition of building, building plans, nuisance, local authority and structure elements - Compensation damages and costs to be determined by court – The authority to mandate demolition or implement modifications vested in MBPJ as the local authority – Should the Court intervene to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff to demolish the wall when the local government is not a party to this suit – S.3, s.70(1) and s.101Act 133. 1 Plaintiff, a national sewerage services company sued Defendant for defamation in respect of statements made to the Edge and New Straits Times-statements made in response to questions asked by reporters-relating to the National Water Service Industry Restructuring (NWSIR) and compliance with the Water Services Industry Act-the Defendant gave his views as the President of Persatuan Penyelidikan Air dan Tenaga Malaysia (AWER) pertaining to pollution caused by sewerage, the need to upgrade sewerage treatment plants and its services, the funding required by the Plaintiff for the upgrade, proposals on complying with the NWSIR model without extending the concession agreement of which Plaintiff is a beneficiary-issue whether impugned statements were capable of being defamatory in meaning-whether defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege avail the Defendant-assertion of the Defendant on factual matters supported by documents-whether malice is present to defeat the defences relied on. 1 TORT: Defamation – Slander and Libel – Offending statements uttered during meeting via MS Teams – An excerpt of the recording circulated via Whatsapp - Whether Offending Statements are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory imputations about Plaintiff’s professional capability and moral character – No justification pleaded or proved – Explanation given appeared wholly incongruous with the fact – Whether Defendant responsible for the Publication and the Re-Publication of the Offending Statements - Meeting recorded and saved in public channel with access by all employees – Whether it was the natural and probable result of the original publication - Remedies - Quantum is limited by the size and influence of the circulation that the Defendant is legally responsible for – General and aggravated damages - Unapologetic conduct - Manufactured defence 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Tuntutan plaintif-plaintif untuk mendapatkan status kewarganegaraan melalui kuatkuasa undang-undang bagi anak angkat yang dipelihara sejak bulan Julai 2010 – Plaintif-plaintif merupakan pasangan suami isteri yang teleh bersepakat untuk mengambil anak angkat setelah plaintif kedua disahkan mengidap penyakit Hodgkin yang menyebabkan peluang untuk hamil rendah. Usaha plaintif-plaintif untuk mendapat anak melalui kaedah persenyawaan in-vitro juga gagal – Sekitar bulan Julai 2010, plaintif kedua menerima panggilan telefon daripada jururawat di Poliklinik Indra dan Pusat Bersalin Klang (Klinik Indra) – Jururawat memaklumkan terdapat bayi yang baharu dilahirkan di Klinik Indra. Oleh kerana kelahiran tersebut secara tidak sah, ibu kandung bayi tersebut enggan membesarkan bayi tersebut dan telah diserahkan kepada Klinik Indra untuk tujuan pengangkatan – Plaintif-plaintif tidak mengetahui identiti ibu bapa kandung anak tersebut dan dimaklumkan bahawa ibu bapa kandung anak tersebut enggan mendaftar kelahiran anak tersebut dan tidak mahu dicatat sebagai ibu bapa kandung – Plaintif-plaintif telah mendaftarkan kelahiran anak tersebut di JPN Klang pada 9.7.2010 dan Sijil Kelahiran No. Daftar CJ43381 dan MyKid anak tersebut telah dikeluarkan – Ketepatan Sijil Kelahiran Pertama anak tersebut telah dipersoalkan dan disiasat oleh JPN ketiga plaintif pertama membawa anak tersebut yang berusia 12 tahun memohon kad pengenalan di JPN Klang – Pihak JPN Klang enggan mengeluarkan kad pengenalan bagi anak tersebut dan Sijil Kelahiran Pertama dibatalkan – Selepas meminda maklumat nama ibu bapa, JPN mengeluarkan Sijil Kelahiran Kedua yang mengandungi catatan kewarganegaraan belum ditentukan dan maklumat ibu bapa tidak diketahui – Selanjutnya Sijil Kelahiran menurut Seksyen 25A Akta Pengangkatan 1953 dikeluarkan bagi anak tersebut dengan status anak bukan warganegara dan maklumat plaintif-plaintif sebagai ibu bapa. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN: Sama ada anak tersebut merupakan warganegara menurut Perkara 14(1)(b) dibaca bersama seksyen 1(a) Bahagian II Jadual Kedua Perlembagaan Persekutuan – Sama ada anak tersebut adalah warganegara menurut Bahagian II Seksyen 1(e) dibaca bersama Seksyen 2(3) Jadual Kedua Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan dilahirkan oleh ibu yang merupakan pemastautin tetap di Malaysia menurut Bahagian III Seksyen 19B Jadual Kedua Perlembagaan Persekutuan – Sama ada anak tersebut adalah seorang warganegara Malaysia melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang menurut Perkara 14(1)(b) dan Bahagian II Seksyen 1(a) Jadual Kedua Perlembagaan Persekutuan berdasarkan status kewarganegaraan ibu bapa angkat – Perkara 14(1)(b) dan Bahagian II Seksyen 1(a) Jadual Kedua Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Bahagian III Seksyen 19B Jadual Kedua Perlembagaan Persekutuan. 1 The application seeks to invalidate sections 4(5), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18A, 20 and/or 30 contravening Articles 8, 121(1) and/or 149 Although sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 modify traditional procedural or evidentiary rules, they do not displace the core adjudicatory function of the Judiciary. Under these provisions, the Court retains judicial oversight in that they retain the inherent power to assess the credibility, weight, and relevance of evidence. The Judiciary remains the final arbiter of fact. As these measures allow the detenu a chance to challenge the prosecution’s case, they remain consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 5 and are shielded by the special legislative powers granted under Article 149. Sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 also satisfy the satisfy the principle of proportionality and have a rational nexus with the objective of SOSMA. 1 This Court holds that mandatory remand requirement in section 30 violates the sanctity of judicial powers vested in the Judiciary and ignores the role of Judges as arbiters. 1 While the Legislature maintains the authority to enact special measures for security offences under Article 149, those laws cannot completely extinguish the core adjudicatory functions of the Judiciary. Therefore, Section 30 is struck down as an impermissible abrogation of judicial power under Article 121(1). 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Adopted child - Citizenship by operation of law - Child born to an Indonesian mother and unknown father later adopted by Malaysian parents – Indonesian mother failed to register the child birth under Indonesian Law - Automatic Indonesian citizenship - Whether child stateless at time of birth - Concept of jus soli and jus sanguinis – Interpretation of ‘born a citizen’ in Section 1(e) - Whether ‘born a citizen’ refers solely to the nationality of the birth mother or to state recognition of such status and the vesting of rights - Article 14(1)(b) Federal Constitution - Section 1(a) and (e), 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule - Section 17 and 19B in Part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution 1 This is the Plaintiff application pursuant to Section 30 Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) for an order for payment of the adjudicated amount directly from the principal. 1 This is an application by Apple 99 Development Sdn Bhd pursuant to Section 15(b) & (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 for an order to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 21.2.2025 obtained by Kerjaya Prospek (M) Sdn Bhd. 1 This is an application by Kerjaya Prospek (M) Sdn Bhd pursuant to Section 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 for an order to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 9.5.2025. 1 This Originating Summons has been filed to challenge the decision of Adjudication Proceedings involving both the Applicant and Respondent. 1 Call on Bank Guarantee - Payment to Third Party - Unconscionable Conduct - Originating Summons is filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to S.11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 for an injunction to restrain the Defendant from making a call on the Bank Guarantee dated 19.4.2021 (Ref No. 349PG090391) in the sum of RM9,140,982.25 issued by United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd in favour of the Defendant (“the Bank Guarantee”) 1 This is an application pursuant to S. 15(b), (c) & (d), Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 for an order to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 12.8.2025. The Adjudicator's core jurisdiction was also challenged. 1 This is an application pursuant to S.28, Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 for an order to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 12.8.2025. 1 This action originated from an Adjudication Decision (AD) made by the appointed adjudicator. The AD was in favour of the Plaintiff as the sub-contractor against the main contractor. 1 Since the main contractor did not pay the adjudication amount to the Plaintiff in accordance to the AD, the Plaintiff made a written request to the Defendant, being the principal to the main contractor for direct payment to be made pursuant to Section 30 of the Construction Industry Payment Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA 2012). 1 -there is no complaint raised against the Adjudicator on procedural unfairness by Goodgloves. 1 -the restriction in awarding interest is only when the interest is awarded on the unpaid sum from the date it becomes due under the contract. In order to award interest in such circumstances, the right to do so should be provided for under the contract. 1 - Goodgloves had failed to discharge its burden to prove on balance of probabilities that the Adjudicator had breached the rule of natural ju 1 - in the absence of any evidences to say otherwise, all 3 conditions have been satisfied and since the Setting Aside has been dismissed, Winston’s application to enforce the AD is allowed 1 -It is trite that an unconditional and on demand bond cannot be restrained unless the beneficiary has acted fraudulently. 1 -Whether the Plaintiff has a good case against the Defendant at Arbitration Proceedings, there are factors which has to be considered and in order to establish the Defendant’s liability evidences through witnesses at the Arbitration Proceedings must be exhausted. -There is no justification offered by the Plaintiff to substantiate its argument to show the Defendant’s act in calling for the PB is tainted with mala fide. 1 -Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant for the burden of proof to shift to the Defendant on the defence of unconscionability for calling on the PB. 1 This Originating Summons is an application by the Plaintiff pursuant to S.11 of the Arbitration Act 2005. 1) To restrain call on performance. 2) Conditions in Performance Bond. 3) Unconscionable conduct. 1 1. This was an application by the Plaintiff wife seeking various reliefs including sole guardianship and custody, as well as care and control of the child of the marriage, limited access by the Defendant husband and child maintenance including arrears thereof. 1 2. On 3.6.2025 after hearing arguments by counsel, the Court made the following orders :- 1 (1) Joint guardianship and custody of the Child is given to the Plaintiff and Defendant; 1 (2) Plaintiff is to have primary physical care and control of the Child; 1 (3) The Defendant is to have unsupervised access to the Child in the following manner : (i) Every Wednesday from 4 pm to 8 pm; (ii) Overnight Access every alternate weekends from Saturday 10 am to Sunday 7 pm. 1 (4) Defendant shall pay Child maintenance in the monthly sum of RM1,500 w.e.f February 2023 with increase of 5% every two years; 1 (5) Arrears of Maintenance : Allowed 1 1. This was an application filed by the Applicant Wife for inter alia sole guardianship, custody, care and control of the children of the marriage and for spousal and child maintenance. 1 2. I conducted interviews with both parties on 25.2.2025 and the Children on 7.3.2025. When all attempts at mediation proved unsuccessful, I proceeded to hear the substantive application and subsequently delivered my decision on 5.6.2025. 1 3. In essence, after careful consideration of the evidence and submissions before me, I found that the grounds advanced in support of the application were unmeritorious and could not be sustained. 1 4. Having regard to the paramount consideration of the Children’s best interests and overall welfare, I determined that it was most appropriate for the Children to remain together under the guardianship, custody, care, and control of the Respondent, with liberal access granted to the Applicant. 1 5. The Applicant, being dissatisfied with this decision, has since lodged an appeal. 1 This was an application filed by the Plaintiff (father) primarily for custody and control of the Plaintiff and Defendant’s child. Apart from the prayer for custody and control the Plaintiff is also seeking for disclosure of the Child’s address and school. 1 The Plaintiff and the Defendant registered their marriage on 28.1.2020. This is the second marriage for the Defendant. She has a daughter from her previous marriage. It is my decision that the Defendant shall be given custody care and control of the Child as it is in the Child’s interest and welfare to do so. The Plaintiff has not included alternative prayers for access to the Child if his application does not resonate with the decision of the Court. Be that as it may I am of the view that the Plaintiff should not be denied access to the Child. It is the Child’s right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents regardless of their matrimonial conflict. 1 [1] This is an application by the wife (the Applicant) to present a divorce petition without first referring the matrimonial difficulty of the parties to a conciliatory body as required by section 106(1)(vi) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA). 1 [2] The parties were married on 8.11.1997 and have four children who are all above the age of 18 years. 1 [3] On 5.9.2024 the Applicant filed the present application to dispense with the requirement in Section 106 LRA 1976 on the ground that for the most part of their marriage the husband (Defendant) has been physically and mentally abusive to her. The Defendant vehemently opposes this application. The Applicant has filed three affidavits and the Defendant one. 1 5. The Petitioner Wife has filed an appeal against my decision granting joint custody of the Children to both parents, with care and control given to the Respondent Husband. 1 1. This is an application filed by the Applicant (the husband) to set aside part of a consent order dated 5.7.2023, specifically to set aside the agreement transferring 50% of his EPF savings to the Respondent (the wife) pursuant to Section 53A of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991. 1 2. On 14.10.2025 this Court dismissed the Applicant’s application. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Application by the defendants to stay the public auction proceedings - Whether the defendants have established special circumstances to stay the proceedings - Order 45 Rules 11 Rules of Court 2012. 1 LAND LAW: Order for sale of charged land – Alleging notice in Form 16D demands sums not lawfully due from the charge – Existence of a pledge of a Fixed Deposit referred to in the Plaintiff’s documents sufficient to extinguish the debt - No record of the Fixed Deposit – Raised question as to the existence of the debt - Whether “cause to the contrary” established – Whether the grant of an order for sale would be contrary to some rule of law or equity - Section 256(3) of the National Land Code 1 Order for sale for charged property – A declared vexatious litigant – No leave obtained to commence further legal proceedings – Whether there are causes to the contrary – Disputes on the debt – Whether charge is inadmissible evidence because of insufficient stamp duty – Allegations that Plaintiff had acted in breach of contrac 1 This is the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons seeking an Order for Sale and other consequential reliefs under Order 83 of the Rules of Court 2012 and sections 256 and 257 of the National Land Code. The Defendant had charged his land to the Plaintiff as security for a Housing Loan and an Overdraft Loan Facility. While the Housing Loan has been settled, the present proceedings arise from the outstanding sum under the Overdraft Loan Account. 1 The uniqueness of this case lies in the Defendant’s defence. He opposed the Plaintiff’s claim, contending that the nineteen withdrawal transactions or fund transfers from the Overdraft Loan Account on 20 December, 2019 were unauthorized and conducted without his knowledge or consent. The Defendant further denied having any online banking facility linked to the account and disclaimed any association with the two recipients of the funds. The Plaintiff, however, maintained that the transactions were not compromised due to its negligence and asserted that they were a deliberate act by the Defendant. 1 The central issue for determination is whether the Defendant is liable for the outstanding sum under the Overdraft Loan Account. This requires the Court to assess the Defendant’s claim that the transactions were unauthorized and the Plaintiff’s contention that they were the Defendant’s deliberate act, not attributable to any negligence on its part. 1 1. This matter concerns a foreclosure application. 1 2. The subject matter of this case, that is, the property at No.149, Jalan Timah, Mines Resort City, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Darul Ehsan (“the said Property”) is the family home of the Defendants as well as the deceased, How Peng Kooi who passed away in year 2017. 1 3. The Property was charged to the Plaintiff as security for a loan facility given to the borrower, Pak Chun Construction Sdn Bhd. 1 4. This Court had allowed the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 1 on 29 July, 2025 and dissatisfied with this Court’s decision in granting an Order for Sale, the Defendants has filed an appeal against this Court’s decision in Enclosure 30. 1 5. These are the Court’s grounds of judgment in relation to Enclosure 1. 1 6. In an application of this nature, the predominant issue is whether the Defendants have succeeded in raising a cause to the contrary. 1 Order for sale - Moneylending agreement - Origination summons premature under s. 254(1) National Land Code - 16D Notice - Agreement void due to non-adherence to Moneylenders Act 1951 - Cause to the contrary under s. 256(3) National Land Code 1 Foreclosure Application- The Plaintiff granted several Islamic financing facilities- secured by two legal charges over the same property- The Defendant defaulted in its payment obligations-“cause to the contrary” within the meaning of section 256(3) of the NLC- Whether the Form 16D was duly served- denial of service is not supported by evidence- Whether the Form 16D is invalid for combining multiple facilities-The law does not require the chargee to issue separate notices for each charge where the property charged is the same- Whether the pending Kuala Lumpur action constitutes “cause to the contrary”- foreclosure proceedings are statutory remedies in rem- The pendency of another civil suit does not prevent the chargee from enforcing its security concurrently- the existence of a parallel proceeding is irrelevant- Defendant has not shown any of the limited grounds that would amount to “cause to the contrary” under section 256(3)- Plaintiff has complied with all statutory preconditions under sections 254 to 257 of the NLC- Plaintiff’s application for an Order for Sale of the charged property is allowed. 1 Company Law – Internal organisational dispute – AGM validity – Proxy voting – Delegate verification – Election procedures – Removal of State Chairmen – Articles of Association – Powers of Central Council – Co-opted members – Whether State Chairmen have locus standi – 2023 High Court decision determining rights of State Chairmen. 1 Civil Procedure – Injunction – Ex parte injunction – Order 29 Rule 1(2C) ROC – Statutory prohibition against restraining meetings of a body corporate – Whether Court has jurisdiction to grant ex parte relief stopping CCM – Mandatory requirements of Order 29 Rule 2A – Full and frank disclosure – Failure to disclose adverse facts – Suppression of binding authority – Defective undertaking as to damages – Whether injunction void ab initio. 1 Equity – Duty of candour – Material non-disclosure – Failure to disclose applicable defences – Adequacy of undertaking – Balance of convenience – Serious issue to be tried – Whether Plaintiffs’ fears amount to irreparable harm – Whether injunction causes disproportionate prejudice to Defendant – American Cyanamid principles. 1 Corporate Governance – Majority rule – Foss v Harbottle – Judicial non-intervention in internal management – Validity of AGM decisions – Timing of election – Delegate eligibility – Procedural regularity – Whether Court should intervene in voluntary associations absent illegality or ultra vires conduct. 1 Civil Procedure - interim injunction - bona fide serious to be tried - whether Defendant entitled to retain majority shareholding - restraint of Extraordinary General Meeting to remove Board of Directors in exercise of rights as majority shareholder - financial operations of the Company in deadlock - adequacy of damages - balance of convenience. 1 KEYWORD - CIVIL PROCEDURE- Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b), (c) or (d)- Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012-Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016- majority shareholders can bring oppression claims- premature judicial intervention in matters- short‑cut mechanisms without adequate pleaded justification- scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process - Court’s duty to prevent multiplicity and collateral litigation- two cases involving the same parties, issues, and facts filed. 1 Striking out - Oppression claim by majority shareholders - Discussions between promoters - Arrangement during incorporation – Alleging breach of the Arrangement - Diversion of business from Company – Majority shareholders in control of the board and management – Locus standi to claim under section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 – Whether majority control is ineffective to bring to an end or remedy the alleged oppressive conduct – Proper plaintiff rule - Rule against reflective loss – Duplicity of proceedings – Abuse of process - The Arrangement and alleged oppressive acts are fully pleaded in a separate writ action filed earlier - Both writ action and section 346 claim seeking money compensation in term of an account of profits or damages and purchase consideration of shares as buy-out remedy respectively – Whether remedies in law adequate 1 Section 346 CA 2016 - Conduct of Defendant - Conduct of Plaintiff - Legal test - Oppression whether Personal Loss to Plaintiff - discretionary remedy. 1 COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Action on behalf of company - Application for leave – Requirement of the 30 days’ written notice of intention to apply for leave - Whether the purported notice is a valid and adequate notice under section 348(2) of the Companies Act 2016 - Whether application for leave made in good faith - Whether it appears prima facie to be in the best interest of company for leave of court to be granted 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan-defendan untuk mendapatkan deklarasi berhubung dua unit pangsapuri di Kuchai East Residence yang terbit berikutan pertikaian antara plaintif dengan Axisjaya Sdn Bhd bermula dari Tindakan di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Guaman No. BA-22C-36-09/2019 (Guaman 36) sejak 3.9.2019 – Guaman 36 telah diselesaikan melalui Perjanjian Penyelesaian bertarikh 1.6.2020 dengan jumlah penyelesaian RM2,227,316.63 yang mensyaratkan supaya sebahagian jumlah penyelesaian berjumlah RM1,101,000.00 dipenuhi melalui kaedah kontra atau tolakan daripada pangsapuri Unit 46-12 dan Unit 15-15 tersebut yang merupakan hal perkara dalam Saman Pemula ini – Defendan pertama dan Axisjaya merupakan entiti-entiti yang mempunyai perkaitan dengan Datuk Hoe Tze Fook (Datuk Hoe) yang merupakan pengarah dan pemegang saham terbesar dalam kedua-dua syarikat sama ada secara langsung atau tidak langsung melalui DHB Holdings Sdn Bhd – Defendan-defendan mencabar tuntutan plaintif kerana plaintif gagal mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah menurut seksyen 471 Akta Syarikat 2016 untuk memulakan Saman Pemula terhadap defendan pertama dan tidak menamakan Malaysian Trustee Berhad (MTB) dalam guaman ini meskipun plaintif tahu bahawa MTB mempunyai kepentingan sebagai pemegang gadaian terhadap Unit 46-12 dan Unit 15-15 menurut Debentur Spesifik (Kuchai East) bertarikh 20.4.2022 – Sama ada kegagalan plantif mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah menurut seksyen 471 Akta Syarikat 2016 untuk memulakan Saman Pemula terhadap defendan pertama merupakan suatu yang fatal – Sama ada tuntutan plaintif cacat kerana tidak menamakan Malaysian Trustee Berhad sebagai pihak dalam Tindakan ini – Sama ada Unit 46-12 dan Unit 15-15 tertakluk kepada gadaian menurut Debentur Spesifik bagi kepentingan Malaysian Trustee Berhad. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT: Plaintif perlu mendapatkan kebenaran mahkamah sebelum memfailkan Saman Pemula terhadap defendan pertama. Plaintif memfailkan permohonan kebenaran di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam selepas guaman di sini dimulakan dan kebenaran diberikan pada 10.3.2025 – Peguam cara defendan tidak lagi membantah terhadap penerusan tindakan plaintif selepas dari perintah kebenaran diperolehi – Seksyen 471 Akta Syarikat 2016. 1 Originating Summon: An application by the plaintiff to reinstate Prolander Sdn Bhd (the Company) into the Registry of the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) - The Company was incorporated on 17 May 2004 - The plaintiff and his wife were the original shareholders and directors of the Company – The Company entered into a Lease Agreement and Sub Lease Agreement with the defendant and intervener - On 16 September 2022, the Company's name was struck off from the SSM Register following the Registrar's application because it was no longer in operation – The defendant initiated legal proceedings against the Company, its other former directors, including the plaintiff and Petron, in Shah Alam High Court Suit No. BA-24NCVC-761-04/2023. 1 Company Law: Reinstatement of a company whose registration has been struck off - Any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar to strike off the company may, within seven years after the name of the company has been struck off, apply to the Court to reinstate the name of the company into the register – Whether the plaintiff is the aggrieved person by the decision of the Register to strike off the Company – Whether at the time of the striking off, the Company is carrying on business or in operation – Whether it is just that the Company be reinstated into the register of SSM – Section 555 Companies Act 2016 1 Tatacara Sivil: Permohonan Plaintif menurut Aturan 15 kaedah 6A(4)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 − Isteri mendiang menentang pelantikan sebagai Wakil Sah Kepada Harta Pusaka − Tiada geran probate atau pentadbir dibuat − Kuasa budi bicara kepada Mahkamah jika Mahkamah fikirkan adil berbuat sedemikian dengan mengambil kira/mempertimbangkan hal keadaan yang relevan − Walau pun persetujuan (consent) tidak/bukan menjadi suatu keperluan nyata dalam kaedah 6A, kewujudan persetujuan (consent)adalah suatu elemen penting untuk menentukan perintah pelantikan wakil sah yang dinamakan − Kerajaan Malaysia v. Yong Siew Choon; Glen Lau Lian Seng v. Personal Representative of Jeswant a/l Natarajan, Deceased 1 Arbitration - Contemplated arbitration proceedings - Injunctive reliefs - Interim measures by High Court - Applicable test - Whether and the extent to which an applicant must show a serious issue to be tried – Whether the Defendant’s arguments are within the purview of arbitration - Sections 11 and 19J of the Arbitration Act 2005 1 UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT: Penindasan terhadap pemegang saham minoriti dan Salahlaku pengarah syarikat − Keterangan afidavit semata-mata − Sama ada tindakan pengarah syarikat suatu penindasan atau salah pengurusan/pengendalian syarikat? − Sama ada Plaintif memenuhi kehendak yang diperlukan di bawah hal penindasan? − Sama ada terdapat penyalahgunaan dana syarikat? − s. 346 Akta Syarikat 2016 (Akta 777). 1 The Plaintiffs initiated this Originating Summons, on 19 December, 2023, against the Defendants named therein in their capacities as the Receivers & Managers of the Plaintiff Companies. 1 The Plaintiffs’ action is premised on Section 383(2) and the Sixth Schedule of the Companies Act 2016, on the ground that they are duty bound under the law to seek the reliefs in this case to protect the Debenture Holders – which in this case is Public Bank. 1 The issues raised in this Originating Summons are as follows: 1 (a) whether the First to Third Defendants are required to provide the Receivers and Managers with the Statement of Affairs of the Companies as at 9 November, 2023 and the requested documents and information, and surrender to the Receivers and Managers any of the Company Documents in accordance with sections 388 and 390 of the Companies Act 2016; 1 (b) whether the First to Third Defendants' failure and refusal to provide the Statement of Affairs and the requested documents and information, and to surrender the Company Documents are in breach of sections 388 and 390 of the Companies Act 2016; 1 (c) whether the Fourth Defendant is required to provide the Receivers and Managers with the relevant information relating to the Properties and deliver the Tenancy Documents to the Receivers and Managers and/or account for all or any of the monies collected from the tenants and/or remitted to the Designated Accounts; 1 (d) whether the Fifth Defendant is required to provide the Receivers and Managers with the relevant information relating to the Tenancy Agreement purportedly entered with Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd on 13 May, 2019; and 1 (e) whether the Fourth and Fifth Defendants are deemed to have renounced the business of the agency and caused the agency created to be terminated. 1 The Plaintiff in its Originating Summons sought a Fortuna Injunction to restrain the Defendants from presenting a winding up petition against it. 1 This Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application and the Defendants have filed an appeal against that decision. 1 The principal issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. 1 Arising from the above dominant issue is the following subsidiary question, namely, whether there is an undisputed debt. 1 Permohonan dibawah s.346 Akta Syarikat – penindasan – fakta penindasan yang dikemukakan bukan satu penindasan mengikut kehendak peruntukkan – ia sekadar keputusan pentadbiran syarikat - ketidak puasan hati Plaintif lebih berkisar kepada beliau tidak mendapat keuntungan dari keputusan awalannya untuk menjual pegangan sahamnya dalam syarikat - kegagalan Defendant menguruskan syarikat atau membuat keputusan yang mungkin tidak selaras dengan kehendak peribadi Plaintif. Ketegangan hubungan antara Plaintif dengan Defendan tidak mencukupi untuk ianya dijadikan alasan wujud penindasan – SP ditolak dengan kos. 1 1. This is the Court’s decision in respect of Enclosure 36, delivered on 27 August 2025. Enclosure 36 concerns the Defendants’ Notice of Application to set aside the Injunction Orders previously granted by this Court in Enclosures 20 and 38. 1 2. Dissatisfied with this Court’s decision, the Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal in Enclosure 92 on 30 September 2025. 1 3. These are the grounds of judgment pertaining to Enclosure 36. 1 Underlying Issue 1 4. The primary issue in respect of Enclosure 36 is whether the Defendants have succeeded in establishing that exceptional circumstances exist, namely, that the Order made by this Court was null and void on grounds of illegality, lack of jurisdiction, or breach of natural justice 1 UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT: Fortuna Injunction & Penggulungan syarikat Plaintif − Hutang Yang Dipertikaikan − Sama ada hutang yang dituntut itu masih dalam pertikaian dan pertikaian itu adalah bona fide? − Prinsip undang-undang yang membenarkan Fortuna Injunction − Sama ada Notis Tuntutan Berkanun adalah cara yang terbaik? − Sama ada Defendan dapat membuktikan bahawa Plaintiif tidak berkeupayaan membayar hutang (“unable to pay debts”)? − Companies Act 2016, s. 465 & 466 1 Application for Fortuna Injunction - whether filing a winding-up petition against Proton would inevitably cause irreparable harm and damage to Proton - On the outstanding invoices claimed are disputed - interest on late payment was disputed - tthere was part payment made after filing of this OS - this court find that there was no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds of the debt, but merely refusal to pay - Proton had failed to satisfy this Court that the intended winding-up petition had no real chance of success - Application was dismissed. 1 This is the Defendants’ application in Enclosure 23, to convert this Originating Summons to a Writ action. Having heard and considered the respective submissions by the parties on 8 April, 2025, I dismissed the application in Enclosure 23 with no order as to costs. The issue for determination before this Court was whether this was a proper case for this Court to allow the said Notice of Application to convert the Originating Summons to a Writ action, together with the necessary consequential directions for the suit to proceed as a Writ action. 1 Originating summons – Whether a High Court enforcement order of a CIPAA award is void for want of locus standi – Whether defendant company was wound up when the High Court enforcement order was made – Whether leave of the winding up court was obtained for the defendant to continue with its enforcement action. 1 This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against my decision delivered on 2.10.2025 whereby the Court declined to confirm the ex parte injunction previously granted on 19.9.2025 and instead discharged the said interim order. The Courts finds that the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons (Enclosure 1) was commenced in breach of section 410(c) of the Companies Act 2016 and is therefore incompetent, that the Ex Parte Injunction Order (Enclosure 8) was obtained through material non-disclosure and contrary to statute, and that the reliefs sought offend sections 54(d) and (f) of the Specific Relief Act 1950 and section 29(2) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. 1 Defendan pula memohon melalui Kandungan 5 supaya Saman Pemula tersebut ditukar kepada writ, dengan alasan terdapat pertikaian fakta serius yang memerlukan keterangan saksi dan pemeriksaan balas. 1 Originating Summons – Conversion to Writ-Order 28 rule 8 – ROC 2012 Material Dispute of Fact-Beneficial Ownership – Proxy/ Nominee Private Caveat – Matrimonial Property Claim Syariah Consent Judgment – Caveatable Interest-Need for Viva Voce Evidence Credibility Assessment-Cross-Examination Required Interest of Justice – Suitability of Procedure 1 LAND LAW: Removal of private caveat – Priorities – Equitable principles – Transfer of land under love and affection – Unregistered transfer – Section 327 of the National Land Code 1965 1 JURISDICTION: Muslim estate – Validity of hibah/inter vivos gift – Whether fall within the jurisdiction of Syariah or Civil Court – Federal Constitution, Paragraph (ii) of Article 4(e) of the Federal List (Schedule 9) 1 EQUITY: Maxims of equity – Priority is determined by the order of the creation of interests – Unregistered interest in registered land – Priority 1 Originating Summon - injunction - to restrain Defendant from proceeding with the second adjudication under CIPAA - pending appeal of the decision of the First Adjudication, which was declared void by KLHC - no stay pending appeal - no serious issue to be tried - Application dismissed. 1 OS – Letter of Undertaking – inadequate consideration - Defendants are bound by the four corners of the contract and were estopped from disputing and denying their responsibilities and obligations under the LOU – OS allowed. 1 O18 – Plaintiff OS is to nullify a High Court order – no appeal – Application to strike out was allowed - I understand the Plaintiff's predicament and dissatisfaction with the HC order dated 27.4.2018, specifically on paragraph c, which puts the Plaintiff in an awkward position. The land was transferred back to the Plaintiff due to a fraudulent transaction, but the charge was declared valid - I am of the opinion that the prayers in the OS were to declare and set aside an order of a High Court which are coordinate jurisdiction with this Court. It is settled law that a High Court cannot set aside a final order regularly obtained from another High Court of concurrent jurisdiction - the proper recourse would be that the Plaintiff should have appealed on that particular portion of the order to the Court of Appeal, then. 1 Akta Kesihatan Mental – mengenepikan perintah siasatan - Jelas dari naratif fakta yang dikemukakan oleh Pencelah, Pemohon telah gagal mendedahkan butiran yang lengkap mengenai pertikaian antara pihak-pihak yang jelas masih berlangsung. Terutamanya bahawa Mohd Basri turut mempunyai isteri kedua yang sah dan mempunyai anak hasil perkahwinan mereka yang mana merupakan waris kepada Mohd Basri – Permohoan dibenarkan, Saman Pemula di dengar semula. 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Kaveat persendirian dimasukkan oleh defendan – Plaintif memohon menyingkirkan kaveat persendirian untuk membolehkan hartanah dijual oleh plaintif – Defendan memfailkan tuntutan harta sepencarian semasa poligami – Sama ada defendan mempunyai kepentingan yang boleh dikaveatkan – Sama ada defendan mempunyai persoalan bermerit yang wajar dibicarakan - Sama ada pemfailan tuntutan harta sepencarian merupakan fikiran terkemudian. 1 KANUN TANAH NEGARA: Kaveat persendirian - Penyingkiran kaveat persendirian – s. 323 dan 327 Kanun Tanah Negara 1 Permohonan untuk membatalkan Kaveat Pendaftar. Plaintif tidak mematuhi prosedur yang diperuntukkan di bawah KTN. Ketiadaan keputusan yang boleh dirayu di bawah seksyen 418, adalah suatu kecacatan bidang kuasa yang menghalang Mahkamah ini daripada melayan permohonan Plaintif. Kaveat Pendaftar telah dimasukkan secara sah dan kekal berkuatkuasa. Permohonan ditolak dengan kos. 1 Assessment of damages for wrongful entry of private caveats - Recoverability of alleged losses by third parties - Reasonable foreseeability of alleged losses – Costs and expenses were not incurred by the Plaintiff – Alleged losses have no direct nexus to the private caveats - Legal fees for removal of the private caveats not recoverable as damages - Failed to prove any actual loss – Nominal damages - Section 329(1) of the National Land Code 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Deklarasi – Plaintif-plaintif pemilik baharu dua bidang tanah yang dibeli daripada si mati, Rajamah binti Mat Saat pada tahun 1966 – Ahli-ahli waris Si mati mencabar kewujudan perjanjian jual beli – Surat perjanjian tidak dapat ditemui walaupun usaha dilakukan untuk mengesan – Kewujudan dokumen kontemporari – Si mati menyerahkan kepada plaintif-plaintif salinan asal suratan hak milik tanah, surat rayuan pindah milik bertarikh 17.7.1984 oleh penjual simati kepada PDTKL berkaitan jual beli, surat daripada Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Kuala Langat bertarikh 27.7.1976 meminta plaintif hadir siasatan pemerolehan tanah, salinan resit memperbaharui geran bertarikh 15.1.1985 dan resit Jualan 2 Pelan bertarikh 10.5.1976 – Tiada maklum balas dari Pejabat Tanah untuk kebenaran pindahmilik – Semenjak tarikh perjanjian jual beli sehingga Si mati meninggal dunia, tanah diusahakan oleh plaintif-plaintif dan tiada keterangan Si mati menuntut tanah-tanah tersebut. 1 TANAH: Autoriti am Mahkamah mengarahkan Pendaftar atau mana-mana Pentadbir Tanah untuk melakukan segala perbuatan sepertimana yang perlu untuk memberi kuatkuasa kepada apa-apa perintah yang diberi atau dibuat dalam mana-mana prosiding yang berhubungan dengan tanah - Pentadbir Tanah tidak membantah permohonan – Seksyen 417 Kanun Tanah Negara 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Plaintif memohon membatalkan kaveat persendirian yang dimasukkan oleh defendan-defendan selain mendapatkan deklarasi bahawa kaveat tersebut dimasukkan secara salah dan tanpa sebab yang munasabah. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Plaintif ditubuhkan khas untuk mewakili bekas pekerja-pekerja New Serendah Estate menerusi Transfer Agreement bertarikh 18.7.2007 – Tanah yang terletak di bawah No. Hakmilik PN, 342782, No. Lot 40479, Mukim Bandar Serendah, Daerah Ulu Selangor, Negeri Selangor telah dipindahmilik oleh UMW Holdings Berhad kepada plaintif untuk pembangunan perumahan bagi bekas pekerja-pekerja estet New Serendah Estate – Defendan pertama dan kedua adalah bekas pekerja estet dan ahli dalam Pertubuhan Pengurusan Kebajikan Perumahan Bekas Pekerja-pekerja Ladang New Serendah Estate (PPKP) – Perjanjian usaha sama tanpa tarikh telah dimasuki oleh plaintif dengan Leegenda Housing Development Sdn Bhd untuk memajukan tanah tersebut dengan membina pangsapuri kos sederhana rendah dan 15% daripada jumlah unit projek tersebut dijadikan sebagai projek Rumah Selangorku – Wujud syarat duluan dalam perjanjian usahasama yang bertujuan menjaga kepentingan bekas pekerja estet termasuk defendan-defendan – Plaintif memberi pilihan kepada defendan-defendan sama ada membeli unit Rumah Selangorku atau melepaskan hak daripada membeli unit rumah tersebut dengan menerima pampasan RM10,000 – Defendan mempertikai kesahihan perjanjian usahasama – Pemegang saham plaintif merupakan ahli keluarga deponen plaintif dan Leegenda Housing Development Sdn Bhd menjalankan perniagaan pegangan pelaburan dan bukannya pemaju hartanah – Sama ada defendan-defendan mempunyai kepentingan yang boleh dikaveatkan atas tanah tersebut – Seksyen 323(1) dan s.327 Kanun Tanah Negara. 1 1. On the happy occasion of the marriage between the First and Second Plaintiffs, a Marriage Agreement was entered into by the newlyweds and their respective parents. A key term in that Agreement concerned a parcel of property that belonged to the First Plaintiff’s late father. 1 2. Unhappily, that very property has now become the subject of the present dispute. 1 3. The Plaintiffs asserted that the said property formed part of the dowry promised by the Bride’s parents to the Groom. This claim, however, is vehemently disputed by the First and Second Defendants, who are the brothers of the First Plaintiff. The Defendants contended that their late father never consented to the property being given as dowry, and that it remains part of his unadministered estate, to be distributed in accordance with the Distribution Act 1958. The Essential Issue 1 4. The fundamental issue for determination in this Originating Summons is whether the property in question was validly given as dowry in connection with the Plaintiffs’ marriage, or whether it remains part of the estate of the late father of the First Plaintiff, First Defendant, and Second Defendant. 1 PENGAMBILAN TANAH: Borang K telah dikeluarkan dan endorsan Borang K mengakibatkan bahagian tanah tersebut telah menjadi tanah Kerajaan − Sama ada permohonan Pemohon bertentangan dengan seksyen 29 Government Proceedings Act 1956 dan seksyen 54 Specific Relief Act 1950? − Sama ada Saman Pemula ini terjerumus kepada encroachment mengenai hak Kerajaan Negeri dan/atau Pesuruhjaya Tanah Persekutuan untuk mengambil tanah menurut peruntukan undang-undang? − Sama ada wujud keadaan istimewa untuk satu perintah penangguhan? − Platform yang tepat via Semakan Kehakiman. 1 A Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) was executed between the Plaintiff (as the Developer) and the Proprietor of the Land (who is not a party to this Suit), as the vendor, on one side, and the Defendant, as the purchaser, on the other. The Defendant required financing to purchase the property, and Public Bank Berhad issued a Letter of Undertaking (subject to certain conditions) to the Plaintiff. As is customary in SPAs between developers and purchasers, the title was transferred to the purchaser to enable the purchaser to charge the land to a financial institution. However, Public Bank Berhad later withdrew the Letter of Undertaking it had issued, leading the Plaintiff to terminate the SPA with the Defendant. Unlike typical cases in land transactions that involve a fraudster or wrongdoer, it appears that none of the parties here have committed any serious transgressions. 1 The overriding issue in the present matter is whether the Defendant (as the purchaser) has breached the SPA and thereby entitling the Plaintiff (as the vendor) to terminate the SPA. 1 In the event that the answer to the question canvassed above is in the affirmative, the ensuing issue is whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the consequential orders as prayed in the Originating Summons. 1 This is the Plaintiff’s application for an extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of the Social Security Appellate Board (“SSAB”) rendered on 4 December 2018. The Plaintiff only filed her Originating Summons on 28 August 2024, a staggering 5 years and 8 months after the SSAB's decision. While it is undisputed that the Plaintiff has the right to appeal under the law, the law clearly stipulates that any such appeal must be filed within 60 days of the decision. To say that the Plaintiff has slept on her rights is an understatement. It appears that she has effectively "put her case to sleep," having made no effort whatsoever to assert her legal rights within the prescribed timeframe. This extraordinary delay reflects a flagrant disregard for procedural rules and a complete failure to exercise even the most rudimentary level of diligence. 1 Nevertheless, it was still contended by the Plaintiff before this Court that her application for an extension of time ought to be allowed and predictably, the Defendant has urged this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application. 1 Civil procedure - Consent judgment - Application to set aside - Whether perfected consent judgment may be set aside by interlocutory application - Fresh action required - Alleged lack of consent and breach of duty - Effect of penal endorsement - Authority of solicitors - Estoppel - Delay - Application dismissed. Companies - Company in liquidation - Duties of liquidator - Whether compliance with consent judgment breaches pari passu principle - No breach shown. Courts - Order 42 r 13 Rules of Court 2012 - Scope - No jurisdiction to set aside perfected consent judgment. Statutes referred: Specific Relief Act 1950 s 41; Companies Act 2016 ss 450, 527; Water Services Industry Act 2006 ss 46-48, 88; Rules of Court 2012 O 42 r 13. 1 LAND LAW: Caveat - Private caveat lodged on account of alleged unpaid management charges – Pure contractual claim on a debt – No registrable interest - Wrongful entry of private caveat - Whether it had caused the Plaintiff suffered damages or losses –Whether conclusive proof of damages suffered by virtue of the private caveat is required before an order for assessment of damages may be made - Proof of damages in tort - Foreseeability and mitigation - Foreseeability as a factual element does not require actual knowledge of the kind of losses suffered - Sufficient evidence adduced to show on balance of probability that Plaintiff has suffered loss caused by the private caveat - Section 329(1) of the National Land Code 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — Affidavit — Defective affidavit without jurat — Whether affidavit must be disregarded in the absence of jurat — Whether defects can be termed as irregular — Rules of Court 2012 O 41 r 3 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — Costs — Security for costs — Foreign plaintiff — Exercise of discretion of court — Whether plaintiff is not ordinarily resident in Malaysia — Plaintiff's lack of assets within Malaysia — Likelihood of plaintiff satisfying costs — Likelihood of plaintiff succeeding the case — Rules of Court 2012 O 23 r 1(1) 1 Summary order for possession of land – Occupation without licence or consent – Whether occupiers had right in law over the land - Part only of undivided share in alienated land is not capable of transfer - Whether the occupiers are licensees coupled with an equity – Application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel - Non-applicability of adverse possession - Gratuitous licensees - Licence to occupy was properly terminated when the notice to quit was served - Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 – sections 214 and 340 of the NLC 1 Sale and Purchase Agreement - Development project – Whether SPA intended that vendor is to grant perpetual Power of Attorney - Supplemental Agreements – Different form of Power of Attorney executed which expired after 30 years – Vendor refused to renew - Plain and ordinary meaning of the SPA - Promissory estoppel or waiver not raised - Variation of the SPA not proved – Parties’ obligations remain - Specific Relief - Exercise of discretion considering affected third-party interests 1 Application to set aside High Court Order – Land acquisition - Contravention of section 43 of the LAA – Whether it can be validated by section 56 of the LAA - Whether action contravenes finality provision in section 68 of the LAA – Whether the Order is null and void and liable to be set aside ex debito justitiae - Time-bar or estoppel - Delay in filing action – Inherent jurisdiction - Land Acquisition Act 1960 1 The distinctiveness of this case stems from the fact that the six siblings concerned are not fighting over their shares in their late parents’ estate. Their shares and entitlement are not in dispute. The overriding disagreement relates to the question of whether the estate in the form of a piece land jointly owned by the six siblings ought to be disposed of or that they should continue to hold the said land as co-proprietors. 1 The Plaintiff has commenced this Originating Summons application seeking an order for the said land to be sold pursuant to section 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code and Order 31 of the Rules of Court 2012. Of the five Defendants, only three of the five Defendants are fervently contesting the application The Prevailing Issue 1 The central issue in this Originating Summons is whether this is a proper case for this Court to exercise its discretion to terminate the co-proprietorship pursuant to section 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code and direct that the said land be sold pursuant to Order 31 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 Section 329 National Land Code - unlawfully entry of caveat - legal test of causation - principles on damages. 1 Probate and administration — Estate administration — Application for appointment of interim administrator — Ex parte originating summons — Whether mere absence of grant of representation sufficient — Requirement of urgent necessity — No evidence of imminent risk to estate — Whether interim appointment justified — Rules of Court 2012, O 15 r 6A; O 92 r 4 — Application dismissed. Civil procedure — Ex parte application — Duty of full and frank disclosure — Non-disclosure of material facts — Failure to disclose existence of other beneficiaries — Effect of non-disclosure — Whether relief ought to be refused. Evidence — Affidavits — Sufficiency of affidavit evidence — Bare assertions without documentary support — Absence of death certificate, proof of relationship and land search — Whether affidavit discloses primary facts — Evidential weight undermined. Equity — Interim relief — Discretion of court — Exceptional remedy — Absence of urgency — Balance of justice — Whether court should exercise inherent powers — Judicial restraint. Practice and procedure — Probate — Interim relief not a substitute for ordinary probate process — Proper course to apply for letters of administration — Exceptional circumstances required. 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Permohonan isteri untuk mendapatkan milikan kosong hartanah daripada suami – Pasangan suami isteri yang sedang dalam proses perceraian – Hartanah dipindahmilik oleh suami kepada isteri - Hartanah masih diduduki oleh suami sejak pemerolehan – Isteri tidak pernah mendiami hartanah – Hartanah disenaraikan sebagai harta dalam perkahwinan - Sama ada isteri boleh memohon deklarasi – Sama ada suami boleh dikategorikan setinggan - Sama ada tuntutan isteri untuk mendapatkan milikan kosong hartanah teratur dan wajar dibenarkan – A.89 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Melalui saman pemula yang sama isteri memohon kaveat persendirian yang dimasukkan oleh suami atas hartanah disingkirkan - Sama ada terdapat kepentingan yang boleh dikaveatkan – s.327 Kanun Tanah Negara- Aturan 92 kaedah 4 KKM 2012. 1 SAMAN PEMULA – Permohonan membatalkan pelantikan Pentadbir Bersama bagi harta pusaka Si mati yang meninggal dunia pada 11.11.2019 – Surat Kuasa Mentadbir diperolehi secara persetujuan oleh Pentadbir-pentadbir Bersama dan benefisiari Si mati – Pentadbir Bersama memfailkan permohonan pengesahan hibah Si mati selepas Sijil Faraidh diperoleh dan setelah persetujuan terhadap pelantikan Pentadbir Bersama dan pengeluaran Surat Kuasa Mentadbir - Ujian sebab yang mencukupi – Sama ada kepentingan benefisiari estate Si mati terpelihara – Beban bukti di bahu pemohon – s.34 Akta Probate dan Pentadbiran 1959. 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Aturan 71 kaedah 5 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 PERKATAAN DAN FRASA: ‘Administration’ - ‘Sufficient cause’ – s.2 dan s.34 Akta Probate dan Pentadbiran 1959 – Prinsip kaedah tafsiran dalam Tebin Mostapa v Hulba-Danyal Balia & Anor 1 O18 – Pembatalan – kesan Penghakiman Persetujuan - Penghakiman Persetujuan yang menjadi teras bantahan kepada permohonan ini jelas bertujuan untuk menyesaikan semua pertikaian dan ianya meliputi apa-apa tindakan yang bersabit kepada harta pesaka arwah Haji Hussein oleh kedua-dua pihak - persetujuan ini menjadikan isu antara pihak-pihak telah res judicata – permohonan dibenarkan. 1 Saman Pemula yang dibawa oleh Plaintif-Plaintif untuk mendapatkan wang pampasan. Terdapat pertikaian fakta yang memerlukan keterangan dari saksi-saksi dan permohonan ini tidak sesuai untuk diputuskan secara keterangan melalui afidavit. Saman Pemula ini diubah kepada writ mengikut Aturan 28 Kaedah 8(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 In this Originating Summons, the Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to serve Form N under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (“LAA”) on the Second Defendant, enabling it to challenge the latter’s award as set out in Form H of the LAA dated 17 August 2023. 1 Section 37 of the LAA grants any person interested the right to invoke section 38, with section 38(4) serving as the key provision for consideration in this case. 1 This is not the first case to invoke these provisions, requiring the Court’s determination and exercise of discretion, nor will it be the last. 1 At the heart of this Originating Summons lie two pivotal questions. The first concerns the Plaintiff’s standing — whether it qualifies as a person interested under section 37 of the LAA. This threshold issue determines the Plaintiff’s locus standi. 1 Should the answer be in the affirmative, the next question is whether special circumstances exist to justify an extension of time beyond the six-week period prescribed in section 38(3)(a) of the LAA. 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Plaintif memohon kedua-dua kaveat persendirian dilanjutkan sementara menunggu guaman probate antara waris-waris si mati dilupuskan – Kaveat persendirian dimasukkan oleh si mati dan plaintif – Defendan adalah pembeli hartanah daripada si mati dan hak milik defendan atas hartanah telah didaftarkan – Menurut plaintif perjanjian jual beli berasaskan pinjaman wang secara haram oleh anak lelaki si mati yang menyebabkan hartanah dipindahmilik kepada defendan sebagai cagaran sementara wang pinjaman dibayar balik – Sama ada plaintif mempunyai locus standi - Sama ada plaintif mempunyai kepentingan yang boleh dikaveatkan – Sama ada plaintif mempunyai persoalan yang wajar dibicarakan – Sama ada imbangan kesenangan memihak kepada kaveat persendirian dikekalkan. 1 KANUN TANAH NEGARA: Kaveat persendirian - Pelanjutan kaveat persendirian – s. 326(2) dan 327 Kanun Tanah Negara 1 1. The root cause for the filing of this Originating Summons stemmed from the cancellation of gratuity payment/retirement benefits initially referenced in the letters of offer made by the First Defendant to the Plaintiff. 3. The overriding issue is whether the cancellation of the gratuity payment was effected in accordance with the agreed procedures and legal framework between the parties. 1 Saman Pemula ini merupakan permohonan oleh Plaintiff yang antara lain untuk membatalkan suatu gadaian pihak ketiga serta satu perintah bahawa lelongan hartanah terlibat yang dibuat oleh Defendan Kedua dan yang dibida oleh Defendan Ketiga dibatalkan dengan efek serta-merta. 1 Isu pokok untuk pertimbangan Mahkamah ini menjurus kepada persoalan sama ada gadaian yang didaftarkan atas nama pemegang gadaian adalah tidak sah, terbatal dan tiada kesan undang-undang. 1 Saman Pemula – Deklarasi yang dimohon oleh Plaintif-Plaintif, bahawa mereka tidak memasuki Islam secara sah; tidak pernah menganuti agama Islam di bawah Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 (“EP”); tidak pernah menjadi orang-orang yang menganuti agama Islam dalam maksud Perkara 1 Senarai Negeri di dalam Jadual Kesembilan Perlembagaan Persekutuan; semua undang-undang yang digubal oleh Badan Perundangan Negeri Selangor menurut Jadual Kesembilan Senarai II Perkara 1 Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak mempunyai kesan ke atas, dan tidak terpakai kepada, Plaintif-Plaintif; dan Plaintif-Plaintif adalah berhak untuk menganuti agama mereka iaitu agama Cina dalam maksud Perkara 11(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, adalah terletak dalam bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG PERCUKAIAN: Seksyen 145 Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976 (Akta 171) dan Aturan 7 kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 − Tafsiran kategori pegangan/hartanah di bawah seksyen 2(c)(i), (ii), (iii) dan (iv) − Notis mengenai Senarai Nilaian Baharu bagi 14 tanah milik Plaintif − Keperluan undang-undang untuk pembayar cukai bayar dahulu cukai yang dikenakan dan kemudiannya boleh menuntut “refund” bagi cukai yang terlebih bayar − “pay first, talk later/afterwards principle” yang telah dijelaskan bagi kes-kes melibatkan pembayaran cukai. 1 LAND LAW: Trespass to land–continuing trespass (actions de die in diem)-existence of fencing and structures - new proprietor’s liability despite purchase - failure to remove fencing and structures - effect of admission of trespass made in land survey report - consent granted to the previous proprietor to enter the encroached area does not bind the new proprietor - order for vacant possession - mandatory injunctions – estoppel - monthly rental - survey cost - damages - exemplary damages. 1 Application to declare Defendant a vexatious litigant – Defendant applied to strike out - Asserting that it merely exercising its right to defend - Filing various interlocutory applications and appeals regardless of the merits - Repeated applications premised on finally determined issues – Whether the Defendant’s conduct constitutes vexatious litigation - Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 1 Originating Summons: Plaintiff’s late father purchased a piece of land in the name of the Plaintiff and Defendant - the Plaintiff’s late father purportedly imposed a condition on the Defendant to take care of the Plaintiff and her family - Defendant left the matrimonial home and abandoned his children- Plaintiff seeks transfer of the Defendant’s one-third share of the land - substantial disputes of fact requiring viva voce evidence. 1 Foreign judgment – Korean judgment obtained by default and renewed for a further 10 years - Enforcement of foreign judgment – Whether the action is time barred - Limitation period is 6 years or 12 years - Whether there is a fresh accrual of action – Whether lodgement of Report of Change of Creditor List constitutes acknowledgment of the debt – Sections 6(1)(a), 6(3), 23, 26(2) and 27 of the Limitation Act 1953 1 Mental Health Act – section 52-28 – inquiry proceeding - After hearing all parties and upon considering the medical report of Dr Bharathi, I am satisfied that the Defendant suffered an illness of major NCD with behavioural disturbances, including delusions, which had affected his mental capacity in decision making and his executive dysfunction - At the inquiry session, both experts were allowed to counter each other's opinions, and I am of the view that Dr Barathi's explanation outdoes Dr Andrew's - Paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of the Originating Summons are thereby allowed. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary possession of land — Whether proper case to be considered under O 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 for plaintiff to obtain possession — Whether triable issues existed — Rules of Court 2012, O 89 LAND LAW — Ownership — Title to land — Indefeasibility of title and interest — Whether plaintiff had indefeasible title over land — Whether indefeasibility defeated by any of the specified statutory grounds — National Land Code, ss 340 (1) and 340 (2) LAND LAW — Adverse possession — Unlawful occupation — Trespassers — Whether defendants occupied land with consent — National Land Code, s 341 1 Permohonan Interlokutori: Permohonan oleh pencelah yang dicadangkan untuk mencelah dalam prosiding Saman Pemula plaintif terhadap defendan supaya perintah jualan bertarikh 9 September 2024 digantung sementara menunggu keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya untuk mengenepikan perintah persetujuan bertarikh 7 Ogos 2023 yang dikatakan diperolehi secara menyalahi undang-undang dan frod – Sama ada pihak pencelah yang dicadangkan mempunyai hak untuk mencelah – Sama ada terdapat keadaan-keadaan khas yang membolehkan perintah Mahkamah di sini digantung – Aturan 15 Kaedah 6 dan Aturan 55 Kaedah 16 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary possession of land – Whether the second and third defendants had shown that they are not squatters and have permission to occupy the land - Whether the plaintiff has the right to possess the land – Order 89 Rules of Court 2012 1 Saman Pemula - deklarasi bahawa bahan yang dirampas bukan produk sawit - rampasan yang dibuat adalah salah - responden adalah badan berkanun - mod sewajarnya melalui semakan kehakiman - Saman Pemula ditolak dengan kos. 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Tuntutan oleh plaintif mewakili Persatuan Peniaga Islam Sungai Buloh bagi peniaga-peniaga yang berniaga di Bandar Baru Sungai Buloh yang telah memohon tapak berniaga bagi penganjuran Bazar Aidilfitri daripada defendan pertama – Permohonan plaintif ditolak dan kelulusan penganjuran diberi kepada defendan ketiga – Plaintif memohon kelulusan dibatalkan kerana cacat – Permohonan plaintif ditolak sebelum tamat tarikh tutup permohonan – Defendan ketiga tiada locus menganjurkan bazar kerana merupakan persatuan penduduk dan tiada hak mengutip wang daripada peniaga-peniaga di bazar. 1 PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Permohonan defendan-defendan mengenepikan perintah injunksi ex-parte bertarikh 22.4.2025 (Kand. 16 dan 19) - wujud pelanggaran undang-undang yang nyata oleh plaintif – Saman Pemula tidak teratur – Kegagalan plaintif menunjukkan wujud isu yang bona fide serius untuk dibicarakan – Plaintif gagal mematuhi kriteria-kriteria ketat yang diperuntukkan – Aturan 29 Kaedah 1 (2A) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 TATACARA SIVIL: Saman Pemula tidak teratur dan cacat kerana plaintif gagal mematuhi peruntukan mandatori – Plaintif gagal memplidkan peruntukan undang-undang yang terpakai dalam prosiding dalam intitulement - Prosidur sivil yang mengawal keperluan intitulement diperincikan dengan mencukupi – Wujud ketidaktentuan dalam relif yang dituntut - Aturan 7 kaedah 2 (1A) KKM 2012 1 PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Permohonan membatalkan Saman Pemula - plaintif membangkitkan wujud komplot dan kepentingan antara kakitangan defendan pertama dan kedua bagi kepentingan defendan ketiga yang disifatkan sebagai memprejudiskan permohonan plaintif - Defendan ketiga didakwa bertujuan mengaut keuntungan dan tidak memihak kepada kepentingan peniaga - Plaintif gagal mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah terhadap defendan-defendan - Pliding plaintif didraf tanpa memberi perhatian terhadap fakta material yang mengaitkan defendan pertama dan kedua dengan tugas statutori yang telah diabaikan sehingga dikatakan menimbulkan komplot dan berunsur kezaliman - Wujud versi fakta yang saling bertentangan antara pihak-pihak dan memerlukan perincian melalui bicara penuh. 1 Pemotongan kaveat secara salah – Defendant enggan mendaftarkan kaveat kali kedua – penamaan pihak yang salah - D1 telah melaksanakan tugas pentadbiran mereka tanpa dibuktikan wujud apa-apa dakwaan penipuan atau frod, maka tindakan mereka dilindungi dibawah seksyen 22 KTN - prosidur yang wajar diambil oleh Plaintif adalah dengan cara Semakan Kehakiman terhadap D1 sahaja, saya dapati, remedi atau relif yang dipohon oleh Plaintif sebenarnya mencabar tanggung jawab D1 dalam melaksanakan tugas statutori dibawah KTN – SP ditolak. 1 PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI: Permohonan membatalkan Saman Pemula – Tuntutan berkaitan pengubahsuaian Musolla Avenham – Defendan pertama bekas Pengerusi JMB Avenham – Defenadn kedua Pentadbir Musolla Avenham - Defendan-defendan telah terlebih dahulu memfailkan tuntutan terhadap plaintif di hadapan Tribunal melalui Tuntutan Tribunal No. TPS/B-1570-3/2025 - Isu-isu yang dikemukakan oleh plaintif dalam Saman Pemula merupakan isu substantif yang sama dan berkait dengan isu yang dibangkitkan dalam tuntutan Tribunal oleh defendan-defendan – Sama ada Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai bidang kuasa mendengar Saman Pemula tanpa memberi laluan kepada Tuntutan Tribunal No. TPS/B-1570-3/2025 – Seksyen 106 Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 - Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1) (b), (c) dan/atau (d) dan Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1) (b), (c) dan/atau (d) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 1. Permohonan Interlokutori: Permohonan defendan ketiga untuk menggantung prosiding dan pelaksanaan perintah sehingga Saman Pemula No. BA-24NCVC-743-04/2025 (Guaman 743) di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam dilupuskan. Defendan kedua dan ketiga, pasangan suami isteri dan peminjam-peminjam kepada plaintif di bawah beberapa kemudahan pinjaman. Selaras dengan terma gadaian, plaintif telah mengambil tindakan halang tebus ke atas hartanah-hartanah tersebut – Sama ada terdapat keadaan khas yang mewajarkan permohonan penggantungan dibenarkan – Aturan 45 kaedah 11 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 In this Originating Summons, the Plaintiff seeks the removal of a private caveat lodged by the Defendant. During the proceedings, a separate application was filed under Enclosure 7 by a Proposed Intervener, requesting leave to intervene and be added as a Co-Defendant in this suit. 1 This decision addresses the application set out in Enclosure 7. 1 The central question in this case is whether this Court should exercise its discretion to grant the application in Enclosure 7. Consequently, the pertinent issue for this Court to consider is whether the Proposed Intervener has established a sufficient legal basis or interest to justify his intervention, as outlined by the Federal Court in Chong Fook Sin v Amanah Raya Bhd (as the administrator for the estate of Raja Nong Chik bin Raja Ishak, deceased) & Ors [2011] 1 AMR 325; [2010] 7 CLJ 917; [2011] 1 MLJ 721; [2010] 1 MLRA 222 ('Chong Fook Sin'). 1 1. This is an appeal by way of Originating Summons (Enclosure 1) brought by the Plaintiff against a decision of the Second Defendant, the Land Administrator, dated 23 May 2023. The decision in question was the granting of an Order for Sale in respect of the property held under PM 459 Lot 21270, Mukim Damansara, Negeri Selangor, located at No. 9, Jalan PJS 10/24, Taman Sri Subang, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan. 1 2. The Plaintiff sought, inter alia, to set aside the Order for Sale and all consequential actions and orders arising therefrom, including a public auction held on 21 November 2024. 1 3. The primary issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds to justify the setting aside of the Order for Sale. 1 Saman Pemula – Deklarasi yang dimohon oleh Plaintif bahawa Plaintif ialah dan sentiasa seorang bukan Islam; dan perintah bersifat mandamus mengarahkan Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara/Defendan untuk mengemas kini status agama Plaintif − Deklarasi yang dimohon adalah terletak dalam bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah − Apabila Mahkamah Shariah memutuskan dengan muktamad status agama ibu kandung Plaintif maka secara langsung status agama Plaintif juga dapat dimuktamadkan serta permohonan Plaintif agar perkahwinannya didaftarkan menurut Akta juga dapat dilaksanakan − Wajar bagi Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada Majlis/Jawatankuasa Fatwa dan/atau Mufti dalam menentukan nasab dan status agama Plaintif. 1 At the core of the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 1 lies a principal request. The relief sought is the immediate withdrawal and cancellation of the Registrar’s Caveat. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks further reliefs specifically directed against the Second Defendant. 1 The submissions exchanged between the parties reveal a striking feature, that is, each side accuses the other of resorting to a 'backdoor approach' in pursuit of their respective objectives. These allegations underscore the contentious and tactical nature of the proceedings. 1 The principal issues are: First, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to have the Registrar’s Caveat withdrawn and cancelled; and Second, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general, exemplary and injunctive reliefs against the Second Defendant. 1 In determining the first of the two principal issues, questions that have arisen include (i) whether the Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the doctrine of res judicata; and (ii) whether fraud has been established, as averred by the Defendants. 1 1. The Plaintiff in this Originating Summons seeks an order directing that a paternity test be conducted in respect of the Second and Third Defendants. 1 2. The Second and Third Defendants are the children of the Plaintiff and the First Defendant. The Plaintiff and the First Defendant have been embroiled in a long-standing and acrimonious dispute, including proceedings for judicial separation. As is often the case in such matrimonial conflicts, it is the children who bear the heaviest consequences. 1 3. All Defendants have filed their respective Notices of Application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons, namely, Enclosures 12, 38, and 40 filed by the First, Second, and Third Defendants respectively. 1 4. At first glance, this suit may appear to be a straightforward application to ascertain the truth of the children’s paternity. However, the issues it raises are anything but simple. 1 5. The principal issue before this Court is whether the Defendants’ respective Notices of Application, contained in Enclosures 12, 38, and 40, ought to be allowed. 1 Originating summons – Whether the 1st defendant is holding the property as a bare trustee for plaintiff – Whether the 1st defendant can withhold plaintiff from transferring the property to the subsale purchaser on the ground of maintenance charges allegedly owing to the 2nd defendant – Whether the 2nd defendant unlawfully charges maintenance fees. 1 Adalah menjadi satu lumrah bahawa jikalau Kerajaan mengambil tanah kepunyaan mana-mana individua atau entiti, tuan punya tanah tersebut berhak mendapat pampasan mengikut undang-undang di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. Di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, wang pampasan tanah sebanyak RM8,253,000.00 telah didepositkan di Mahkamah selaras dengan seksyen 29 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. Plaintiff, melalui Sama Pemulanya di dalam Lampiran 1, telah memohon kepada Mahkamah ini supaya beliau dibenarkan untuk mendapatkan pampasan sebanyak 75% yang berjumah RM1,096,538.46 atas alasan Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang telah mengambil empat tanah lot Plaintif untuk membina Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping – Banting) Pakej 3. Mahkamah ini telah menolak Saman Pemula ini pada 23 April, 2025. Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut, Plaintif telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap Keputusan ini ke Mahkamah Rayuan melalui Lampiran 45 pada 8 Mei, 2025. Berikut adalah alasan penghakiman Mahkamah ini untuk Lampiran 1. 1 1. This matter comes before the Court by way of an Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiff, Kantharubi a/p P Krishnan, who seeks, inter alia, the following reliefs: 1 • That the Private Caveat registered by the Defendant on 31.03.2022 over the property known as GRN 301543, Lot 1502, Bandar Kundang, Mukim Rawang, Gombak, Selangor (“the Property”) be cancelled forthwith pursuant to section 327 of the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC”). 1 • A declaration that the Plaintiff is the sole and rightful owner of the said Property by virtue of a Deed of Gift dated 13.02.1987, executed by the then-registered proprietors, Tan Chong Beng and Yeo Chooi Bow. 1 • In the alternative, a declaration that the Plaintiff has valid legal rights to the Property under the said Deed of Gift, and that the Defendant holds no legal interest sufficient to justify the lodging of the Private Caveat. 1 • Costs to be borne by the Defendant. 1 2. The Plaintiff asserts exclusive rights over the Property by virtue of the Deed of Gift, and challenges the validity of any competing claim or interest purportedly held by the Defendant. The Defendant, in contrast, maintains that her interest arises under a pre-existing Deed of Trust, and that the caveat serves to protect a legitimate beneficial interest. 1 3. At the heart of this dispute, then, lies what may be described, with some aptness, as “my Deed of Gift versus your Deed of Trust.” 1 This is an originating summons filed by the Plaintiffs, who are members and former office bearers of Persatuan Jagaan Kanak-Kanak Ekliptik Klang (“the Association”), seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs concerning the validity of their removal and the appointment of new committee members. The controversy arises from the unilateral action of the First Defendant in removing the Plaintiffs from their positions and replacing them with the Second to Sixth Defendants. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established serious irregularities in the removal and appointment exercise. The unilateral acts of the First Defendant in effecting changes to the Association’s committee and altering the Registrar of Societies records were unconstitutional and without lawful mandate. Such defects cannot be cured retrospectively by subsequent resolutions or adjustments. On the preliminary objection, I do not accept that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Section 16 of the Societies Act 1966 does vest the Registrar of Societies with supervisory powers, but the courts have consistently held that judicial intervention is warranted where there is a breach of a society’s constitution or denial of natural justice. 1 The Appellant filed an Originating Summons dated 6 May 2025 to appeal against the Respondent’s decision pursuant to section 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 and Order 55A rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. This ruling concerns the Appellant’s Preliminary Objection directed at the Case Stated dated 20 August 2025, prepared pursuant to Section 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949. Two issues arise for Court’s determination are as follow, (a) whether section 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 obliges the Collector to include all facts or issues proposed by the Appellant; and (b) whether the Case Stated is defective for omitting such matters. 1 Application by Prasarana Malaysia Berhad to intervene in judicial review proceeding relating to a land acquisition for LRT 3 Project where Prasarana is the paymaster. Judicial Review seeks a mandamus for Respondents to pay the amount due from the land acquisition. 1 Ini adalah permohonan substantif untuk suatu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan awad Responden 2 bertarikh 15.11.2023 dalam Tuntutan No: TTPM/B/0515(T)/23. Pemohon telah meminda keluasan hartanah yang dibeli oleh Responden 2 dan walaupun Responden 2 setuju, dia masih menuntut gantirugi untuk kehilangan kawasan tersebut. Kiraan pampasan dibuat mengikut fomula yang ditetapkan di bawah perjanjian jual beli hartanah tersebut. 1 Application for interim injunction to the Respondents from evicting him from a stall managed by the Respondents. The eviction was for failure to pay rental. The Applicant failed to show there was a bona fide issue to be tried in his JR application that warranted granting the injunction. Damages would be an adequate remedy if the Applicant succeeds in his substantive application. 1 Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings. The Applicant was imposed a punishment of reduction of salary. The Applicant sought to quash the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. 1 Exemption for delivery of vacant possession. Sections 35 and 38C of Akta Langkah-Langkah Sementara Bagi Mengurangkan Kesan Penyakit Koronavirus 2019 (COVID 19) Whether Minister had correctly allowed the exemptions. 1 Pemohon memfailkan 2 permohonan - (1) perintah penggantungan untuk menghalang Responden dari mengisi kekosongan jawatan Timbalan Ketua Pengarah (Produksi dan Teknikal) yang pernah disandangnya; dan (ii) penzahiran dokumen berhubung kenaikan pangkat. 1 Pemohon gagal melepasi beban pembuktian wujudnya keadaaan harus yang mewajarkan penggantungan tersebut. Responden telahpun memberikan Pemohon dokumen yang dipohon dan memberi penjelasan yang munasabah akan kenapa rakaman audio mesyuarat tidak dapat dikemukakan. 1 Order 53 Rules of Court 2012. Leave to commence judicial review proceedings. Whether a letter to the Respondent from the Applicant looking forward to a favourable reply by a certain date amounts to a decision amendable to judicial review. 1 Substantive application for judicial review for an order of certiorari to quash the Respondent's compounds issued for failure to obtain licences for the Applicant's signages and banners. The Applicant argued that they were subject to Act 804, Act 586 and the Malaysia Dental Council Guidelines. 1 Leave to commence judicial review to challenge decision of Public Prosecution in charging the Second Respondent under section 43(1) of the Road Transport Act 1976 instead of section 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1976. 1 JR to challenge for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the First Respondent to dismiss the Applicant. Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of dangerous drugs and self administering dangerous drugs. He was bound over with a bond of good behaviour under section 173A Criminal Procedure Code. Applicant alleged he was denied a right to be heard and bad faith on the part of the Respondents. Also alleged that the Respondents took into account irrelevant considerations. Proviso in Article 132 removes right to be heard if there is a finding of guilt which there was in this case. No proof of bad faith. Averment in First Respondent's affidavit made reference to the Applicant trafficking drugs which was not the case. This is a irrelevant consideration. 1 Order 53 Rule 3 (6) Rule of Court 2012. Application for judicial review was made out of time. Application for extension of time filed. Whether ignorance of the law and time to appoint lawyer is good reasons to allow the extension of time. 1 Application for leave to issue judicial review application. AG objected to the application on the grounds that the application was filed out of the prescribed timeframe. AG objection allowed, application dismissed with costs. 1 Application for judicial review to quash Notice issued pursuant to subsection 87(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974. Whether service of Notice to Applicant's solicitor is procedurally proper. 1 Application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Respondent's notice for the Applicants to vacate the Kampung Indian Settlement. AG objected to the application as it was out of time. Applicants were challenging the Respondents decision that they were on the land without permission. That was based on the first notice to vacate the land. The application is out of time. 1 Permohonan untuk kebenaran memohon semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Responden Ke-3 yang membenarkan Responden Pertama dan Ke-2 hadir dan mengemukakan bantahan untuk pertukaran zon di Rancangan Tempatan. 1 Judicial Review Application to quash the decision of the Appeal Board in allowing the Second Respondent planning permission to construct a commercial columbarium. Question of whether the planning permission must be accompanied by an approved layout plan. 1 Judicial review application quash the decision of the local authority to demolish stalls at Taman Medan. Applicants were not licensed. Question of legitimate expectation. 1 Leave application for judicial review to challenge the Respondent's decision to issue additional assessment for 2018 - 2023. The Applicant called into question - (i) the interpretation and application of sections 140A(2) and (3) Act 53 and the Rules in treating their interest free advances as ‘financial assistance’; and (ii) the imposition of the surcharge under section 140(3C) Act 53 and whether that provision had a retrospective effect. 1 AG object to the leave as the Applicant had not availed themself to the domestic remedy under section 99 Act 53. 1 Application for judicial review to quash the decision of the Majlis Perbandaran Hulu Selangor in granting Planning Permission. Alternatively, Applicants sought the Impunge Decision to be amended. Whether the Applicants who have purchased their plots of land are aggrieved by the Impugned Decision and therefore whether the judicial review ought to be allowed. 1 Lampiran 8 adalah permohonan substantif untuk semakan kehakiman untuk mencabar keputusan Responden Pertama yang mengeluarkan perintah sekatan. Pemohon gagal membuktikan ketidakpatuhan prosidur dalam proses pengeluaran perintah sekatan itu. 1 Application for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. Issue of whether section 4C of the Income Tax 1967 which was declared unconstitutional in the case of Wiramuda (M) Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri is to have effect prospectively or retrospectively. 1 Land acquisition - compensation not paid. Certificate pursuant to section 33 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 obtained. 1 Applicant seeking order of mandamus. Whether State Financial Officer is the correct respondent. 1 Prayer 2 in Enclosure 1 is the Applicant’s application for a stay of any action by the Respondent to demolish the guard house and boom gate in the Residential Area pending the disposal of the Applicant’s substantive application for judicial review. The Applicant failed to discharge the onus on them to show special circumstances that warrant a stay. The application is without merit. 1 Application for leave to file for judicial review. AG objected on the grounds that the application was filed outside the prescribed time frame. AG's objection was allowed and the application was dismissed. 1 Substantive application for judicial to challenge against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee for Dismissal or Demotion of Support Staff (DC) who dismissed him on 2 charges of disciplinary infraction. His appeal to the Appeals Committee for Dismissal or Demotion of Support Staff (Appeals Committee) was also rejected. The Applicant contends that the Respondent acted unreasonably and irrationally by disregarding the Medical Board’s findings and failing to follow Service Circular No. 4 of 1998. His application was dismissed. 1 Application for judicial review to challenge the decision of Land Administrator not to vary the land use and amend the syarat nyata even though premium was paid by previous land owner. 1 Section 124 of the National Land Code. 1 Assessment of compensation for any loss suffered by Applicants' in consequence of failure of First and Fifth Respondent to perform public duty. 1 Application for leave to commence judicial review application to challenge the decision of the First Respondent’s decision rejecting their applications to be alienated lands AG objected to the application on the following grounds - 1 (i) Applicant 13 did not have the locus standi to file this application as she was not a TOL holder nor had she applied to the Lands to be alienated to her; 1 (ii) Applicants 1, 2, 3 and 20 did not have the locus standi to file this application as they were not aggrieved by the Rejection Letters because it was not addressed to them; 1 (iii) Applicant 14 did not have the locus standi because their application for the Lands to be alienated to them was still in consideration and had not been rejected; 1 (iv) Enclosure 1 was filed outside the prescribed time frame; 1 (v) Enclosure 1 was vexatious and frivolous as the Applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure, there were no grounds to challenge the Notices and their application for an order of mandamus was flawed. 1 AG's objections were allowed and the Applicants' application for leave was dismissed. 1 Application for judicial review to quash the decision of the Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor which allowed the Second Respondent's application establish a taska. The local authority, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya had earlier rejected this application. Whether the Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor had acted correctly in coming to the impugned Decision. 1 Enclosure 6 - substantive application for judicial review to quash the First Respondent's decision to terminate the Applicant's application as Dean of the Medical Faculty. The First Respondent has the discretion to terminate the appointment at any time. There are insufficient grounds to give rise to a legitimate expectation that guaranteed the appointment will be until expiry of the contract. There was no evidence of mala fide. 1 Substantive application for judicial review to quash the 2nd Respondent's award dated 18.3.2024. Issue is regarding the developer's responsibility to hold the first AGM for the joint management body. The First Respondent's reliance on section 17(5) Strata Management Act 2013 (Act 757) to exempt themselves from the obligation to convene the first AGM of the JMB nor to justify its continued control over the the strata management of the Condo 1 Judicial Management - Application to Intervene – Unsecured Creditor – Non debenture holder - Income tax arrears – Winding Up Petition stayed - No statutory right to intervene–– Statutory moratorium – Public revenue and interest – Abuse of process delayed winding up proceedings - Whether an unsecured creditor with a disputed claim possesses the locus standi to intervene in a judicial management proceeding – Nomination of judicial manager – Restrict participation in judicial management proceedings – Legislative intent is to facilitate company’s rehabilitation and ensure the judicial management process proceeds without being encumbered by numerous creditor objections - Order 15 Rule 6 (2)(b) Companies Act 2016 - Section 407(3) Companies Act 2016 - Section 409 Companies Act 2016 - Section 410 Companies Act 2016. 1 Leave to intervene in judicial management proceeding-Section 410(c) Companies Act 2016-application to strike out JM application-whether proposed interveners are entitled to intervene in the JM application-whether JM application should be struct out at this stage-whether leave to be granted-basis to intervene-creditors of the company with existing or pending legal claims-the outcome of the JM application will affect their rights and remedies-Applicant contends that unsecured creditors are not entitled to intervene or be heard in JM applications-relied on Desa Tiasa case-proposed intervener argued that Desa Tiasa has no binding effect as it has no written judgment-appellate court decision which has not supported by written grounds cannot be treated as binding precedent-a number of High Court decisions allowed unsecured creditors to intervene in JM application-no provision in the CA 2016 or the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 that limits intervention to unsecured creditors-the nature of JM application justifies access to affected parties-reinforced the objectives of JM application-each proposed interveners has a legitimate legal interest in the outcome of the JM application-rights of creditors-whether secured or unsecured-clearly affected by the outcome of the JM application-proposed interveners are allowed to intervene in the JM application-striking out application will be dealt with the JM application. 1 Judicial management—Application to intervene—Locus standi—Unsecured creditor—Judgment creditor—Whether entitled to oppose or participate in judicial management proceedings—Sections 404, 405, 407, 409(b), 410 and 414 Companies Act 2016—Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018, r 13—Persons entitled to be heard at hearing of judicial management application—Whether general procedural rules may enlarge statutory standing—Order 15 rule 6 Rules of Court 2012—Statutory nature of judicial management—Specific procedural code prevailing over general rules—Effect of statutory moratorium on unsecured creditors—Whether moratorium confers separate legal interest—Parliamentary intention to limit adversarial participation at pre-order stage—Rights of unsecured creditors preserved post-appointment of judicial manager—Application to intervene dismissed—No order as to costs. 1 Respondent unable to pay its debts- sections 465(1)(e) and 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”)-whether it is just and equitable for the company to be wound up-Petitioner obtained judgment-issued a statutory notice-Respondent failed, neglected or refused to comply with the statutory demand-Respondent neither gave notice of intention to appear nor filed any affidavit in opposition to the petition-Respondent failed to attend the hearing despite proper service of the petition-the question of company’s inability to pay its debts must be considered in a commercial context-the test is not whether the company’s assets exceed its liabilities on paper-whether it is able to meet current demand as they fall due-a company that neglects to pay its debts within the prescribed period is deemed commercially insolvent, regardless of whether it possesses assets which, if realised, might enable it to discharge its liabilities in full- Respondent’s failure to settle the judgment debt despite being served with a valid statutory notice demonstrates its commercial insolvency- Respondent’s neglect to pay a clear and undisputed debt within the statutory period- its absence at the hearing- failure to file any affidavit in opposition- leaves no doubt that it is unable to meet its current financial obligations as they fall due- Petitioner has established the statutory grounds for winding up- It is therefore just and equitable that the Respondent be wound up. 1 Judicial management—Statutory moratorium—Section 410(c) Companies Act 2016—Pending judicial management application—Effect on winding-up petition commenced thereafter—Whether High Court has jurisdiction to hear interlocutory applications within winding-up proceedings—Stay application and striking-out application—Whether amount to “commencement or continuation of proceedings” against company—Construction and purpose of section 410(c)—Leave requirement—Prior leave nunc pro tunc granted by Judicial Management Court subsequently set aside on appeal—No subsisting leave—Moratorium operating in full force—Whether prohibition applies to applications filed by company itself—Section applies regardless of applicant—Any step taken within winding-up cause constitutes continuation of proceeding—Court barred from entertaining merits—Jurisdictional bar—Applications dismissed for want of jurisdiction—Winding-up petition neither struck out nor dismissed—Petition held in abeyance pending grant of leave—No order as to costs. 1 Winding Up Petition – Failure to comply statutory demand raises statutory presumption of inability to pay debt – Debt founded on a final judgment that is undisputed and enforceable – Court is bound to grant winding up order unless there is fraud, illegality or other exception circumstances – Court should not go behind a valid judgement debt - Winding Up causes severe disruption of essential public transport system in Klang Valley – Contrary to public interest – Discretion of court under Section 465(1) Companies Act 2-16 to refuse a winding up order notwithstanding proof of insolvency – Exist genuine dispute of the debt – Bona fide effort to settle judgement sum – Commercial viable company with ongoing valuable contract – Demonstrate willingness to satisfy the judgement debt - Section 465 (1)(e) Companies Act 2016 - Section 466 (1) Companies Act 2016. 1 Winding Up - Breakdown in mutual trust and confidence - Whether the subsratum of the company has failed following the termination of Licensing Agreement - Whether the disputes between the parties amount to a irretrievable deadlock that justifies winding up - Whether quasi-partenership is establised and whether mutual trust and confidence were essential to its operation - Whether actions done amount to unfiar exclusion and oppression - Section 465(1)(f) and (h) Companies Act 2016 - 1 section 465(1)(e) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”)- unable to pay its debts- of section 466(1)(a) CA 2016- Respondent’s persistent failure to satisfy the judgment debt despite repeated indulgence-Petition is based on a judgment obtained by the Government of Malaysia- Respondent failed to comply with this statutory demand- triggering the statutory presumption of insolvency under section 466(1)(a) CA 2016.- Respondent did not file any affidavit in opposition to the petition- no evidence placed before the Court disputing the Petitioner’s claim- debt is a valid and undisputed judgment debt- The Petitioner has fully complied with the procedural requirements prescribed under section 466(1)(a) CA 2016- statutory presumption of insolvency therefore stands unrebutted- Respondent’s repeated failure to adhere to the proposed settlement terms and to make any payments despite numerous indulgences reinforces the inference of commercial insolvency- the requirements for a winding-up order under section 465(1)(e) CA 2016 have been met. 1 Winding Up Petition - Application to Strike Out - Whether the Petition discloses a reasonable cause of action - Whether the Petition is frivolous or vexatious - Whether the Petition amounts to an abuse of the process of the court - Duplicity of Proceedings and Abuse of Process - Just and Equitable Jurisdiction Not Engaged – Frustrate or pre-empt the adjudication of the Derivative action – Presence of serious disputes of fact which is inconsistent and undermines the bona fide of the petition – Duplicity, timing and evident intent to gain procedural advantage is an abuse of court process – Just and Equitable grounds in winding up is a last resort and to be exercise sparingly - Section 456(1)(h) Companies Act 2016 - Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(b) and (d) of Rules of Court 2012. 1 Winding up—Inability to pay debts—Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016—Statutory demand—Section 466(1)(a)—Loan and financial assistance—Whether debt bona fide disputed on substantial grounds—Balance confirmation issued by company—Effect of written acknowledgment of indebtedness—Dispute as to quantum—Whether sufficient to defeat winding-up petition—Minimum statutory threshold—Uncertainty of loan agreement—Whether essential terms proved—Repayment obligation and due date—No requirement for prior judgment before presentation of petition—Nature of winding-up proceedings—Service of statutory notice—Delivery by courier—Whether valid service—Actual receipt admitted—Presumption of inability to pay—Failure to comply within 21 days—Whether presumption rebutted—Paid-up capital insufficient to prove solvency—Absence of cashflow or financial evidence—Bare assertions inadequate—Discretion of court—No exceptional circumstances—Petition allowed—Company ordered to be wound up—Official Receiver appointed liquidator—Costs awarded out of company’s assets. 1 Winding Up Petition – Default in repayment of banking facilities – Final judgement - Failure to satisfy judgement debt – Statutory Notice – Commercial solvency – Just and Equitable – Active business operation – Absence of bona fide dispute of debt – Enforceable court judgement – Reliance on outdated financial statement – Whether the Petitioner has established a statutory presumption of insolvency under Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 – Whether the Respondent has successfully rebutted that presumption by showing a bona fide dispute of the debt or genuine solvency – Whether any equitable or discretionary grounds justify refusing a winding up order – Special circumstances - Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 – Section 466 (1)(a) Companies Act 2016. 1 Wound up on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts-failure to comply with statutory notice of demand issued under section 466(1)(a)-service of cause papers- rule 25(1) of the Companies (Winding -Up) Rules 1972-rule 24 of the Companies (Winding -Up) Rules 1972-debst are not disputed-no affidavit in opposition-presumption of insolvency-debts remain unpaid-unsatisfactory explanation or opposition given by the Respondent-no evidence to suggest that the company is solvent-no attempt to settle the debt-absence of payment confirms a state of financial distress-court may also order winding up if it is just and equitable to do so-the persistent default and silence of the company justifies the exercise of this discretion-presumption of insolvency stands unrebutted. 1 Winding Up Petition – Final Judgement affirmed by Court of Appeal – Presence of fraud – Court should go behind a judgement and determine the existence of a bona fide dispute – Whether the court should go behind the judgement and decline to act on it due to alleged fraud – Whether the Respondent is deemed unable to pay its debt under Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 – Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a winding up order under Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 – Final Judgement is a conclusive proof of debt unless presence of fraud or collusion – Bare allegation of fraud without credible evidence is insufficient to displace the regularity and conclusiveness of a final judgement – No audited or financial record to prove solvency of Respondent - Section 465 (1)(e) Companies Act 2016 - Section 466 (1) Companies Act 2016. 1 Winding Up - Petition - Whether the debt relied upon by the Petitioner was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds - Whether the absence of a judgment debt precluded the presentation of the winding-up petition - Whether the Respondent was deemed unable to pay its debts under section 466(1)(a) CA 2016 – Settlement Agreement – Written admitted liability - unequivocal acknowledgment of indebtedness - Default and failure to comply with the statutory notice - Alleged duress and dispute of debt - Allegations of economic duress and coercion - Absence of judgment debt - Insolvency under section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 - Section 465(1)(e) and Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 1 Winding Up - Whether the Petition is defective due to the Affidavit Verifying Petition being filed after the prescribed time - Whether there exists a bona fide dispute on substantial grpunds in respect of the judgement debt - Whether the Petition constitutess an abuse of court process in light of pending foreclosure proceedings and the Respondent's alleged solvency - Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 - Rule 26 Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 - Rule 194 Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 1 An application to wind up the petition under section 465 (1) (e) and 466 (1) (a) of the Companies Act 2016 (‘CA 2016’)-unpaid debt arising from an adjudication decision rendered under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)-application to strike out the petition on grounds of non-compliance with statutory service requirements and the existence of bona fide disputes-grounds for striking out are the petition and statutory notice were not served at the Respondent’s registered address as required under section 466(1)(a) and Rule 25 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972-debt is disputed-it would be unjust and inequitable to wind up a solvent company- service was only carry out at the business address and not registered address-Respondent has clearly received the Petition-having filed an affidavit in opposition and the striking out application-court is satisfied that service has been duly effected and in compliance with the law-Respondent suffered no prejudice-debts arising from adjudication decisions under CIPAA, unless set aside or stayed are not capable of being disputed at the winding up stage-the debt is final and binding-the statutory presumption of inability to pay arises-no cogent evidence of solvency-striking out is dismissed-winding up order is granted. 1 Leave to file Affidavit in Opposition to the winding up petition out of time-Rule 193 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972-Petitioner opposed-delay was inordinate-inexcusable-calculated strategy to obstruct the progress of petition-delay of nearly 10 months-delay caused by financial constraints-misappropriation of funds-ongoing disputes involving directors-Respondent contends no real prejudice to the Petitioner-Court to exercise its discretion in the interest of justice-Rule 193 and 194- wide and not curtailed by rigid timelines-Court may enlarge time even if hearing date has been fixed-Court must consider conduct of the applicant-length of the delay-the reasons advanced and overall interests of justice-discretion to enlarge time must be exercised judiciously-financial difficulties and collateral disputes do not absolve a party from its obligation to comply with procedural timelines-winding up petition-expediency and certainty are of paramount importance-no steps taken to regularize-no credible defence to the petition debt has been disclosed-vague allegations of conspiracy not sufficient to warrant indulgence from this Court-any further delay would prejudice the legitimate interests of the Petitioner. 1 Winding Up Petition – Judgement in Default of Appearance – Failure to satisfy judgement debt – Statutory Notice – Just and Equitable - Judicial Management – Whether the debt founded on the Judgement is bona fide disputed – Whether the Petitioner is entitled to rely on the presumption of insolvency under Section 466(1)(a) CA 2016 – Whether it is just and equitable for the Respondent to be wound up – Validity of judgement – Final and enforceable judgement – No attempt to set aside or appeal judgement - Presumption of Insolvency – Absence of financial disclosure – Absence of bona fide dispute debt – Delayed Enforcement - Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 – Section 466 (1)(a) Companies Act 2016. 1 Winding Up Petition - Just and Equitable - Quasi-partnership - Absence of shareholders’ agreement - Whether the circumstances warrant the Court’s intervention to wind up the company on the “just and equitable” ground under section 465(1)(h) CA 2016 - Whether any alternative remedy or consideration should dissuade the Court from granting a winding-up order - Mutual Confidence - Complete deadlock - Irretrievable breakdown - Mutual breakdown of confidence and trust - Prevented access to information and premises - Personal relationship foundation -Exclusion from management -Unilateral decisions - Closure of business without consultation - Restriction of access to financial information - Loss of substratum - Whether Section 465(1)(f) Companies Act 2016 1 Application to amend winding up petition-to substitute the originally named proposed liquidator-post filing development-the appointment of the Liquidator as the Receiver and Manager of the Respondent’s company-order to dispense with procedural requirements under Rule 32 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972-on the basis that Respondent has appeared and contested the Petition-no other creditor intervened-Respondent opposed-procedural impropriety, bad faith-ulterior motive-whether court should permit the proposed amendment to the petition under Section 469(3)(e) of the Companies Act 2016-whether procedural requirements under Rule 32 should be dispensed with-whether the Respondent’s objections disclose sufficient basis to refuse the amendment-amendment is procedural and necessary-does not affect the substance of the petition-necessary to rectify the disqualification of the originally proposed liquidator-to ensure the appointment of a valid liquidator-amendment should be allowed if made bona fide-do not change the nature of the claim-do not cause irremediable prejudice-substitution of Liquidator is a strategy to frustrate the Respondent’s ongoing legal proceedings in other forums-failure to resign as proposed liquidator before taking up the R&M appointment constitutes a breach of fiduciary responsibility-amendment is narrow in scope-confined to the identity of the proposed liquidator-it does not alter the substance of the winding up petition-the threshold of granting leave to amend-amendment is bona fide-does not cause injustice-does not introduce new claim or inconsistent claim-Respondent’s objections are speculative in nature-not substantiated by cogent evidence-no nexus between the proposed new liquidator and any alleged scheme to frustrate Respondent’s civil claims-given that the Respondent is fully aware of the notice of the petition and has actively contested it-amendment is allowed- Rule 32 is allowed to be dispensed with. 1 Declaratory reliefs-debenture is void-liquidator ought to treat the applicant as a purchase under the scheme of arrangement under section 366 of the Companies Act 2016-settlement agreement and SPA form a valid and binding contract-consideration was provided in the form of legal service-2nd applicant is entitled to enforce the SPA-2nd applicant is the legal/beneficial owner of the unit by virtue of the SPA-debenture executed in favour of MTB is subordinate to their prior contractual right and should not override the SPA-equity supports their position-failing to recognise the 2nd applicant’s rights would result in unjust enrichment of the MTB and/or the Receivers-equity looks to substance over form and will enforce contracts where consideration is provided even if the formalities of registration are not observed-MTB argues that the 2nd applicant is a mere nominee and not a purchaser-no consideration-even if its is genuine, it is not registrable under the National Land Code-does not give rise to any equitable interest against third parties-debenture was executed and registered under section 352 CA 2016-thereby takes priority over any unregistered or equitable claims-applicant did not file any caveat over the land-Applicant’s rights are subordinate to those of a secured creditor acting in good faith-SPA is not supported by substantiated professional bills-the Contra Agreement is not properly executed, not signed and sealed-SPA is void for failure of consideration-Applicant has no beneficial interest over the property as there in no consideration-the claim is not supported by clear, contemporaneous and consistent documentation-the bills are questionable-the SPA and Settlement Agreement do not satisfy Section 64 and 66 of the CA 2016-documents are of no legal effect-2nd applicant cannot rely on equity to create and interest-the applicants’ unregistered and imperfect claim ranks subordinate-MTB’s registered debenture clearly prevails-no caveat was lodged-no steps to perfect the title-the 2nd applicant remained a mere nominee-the Liquidator and Receivers acted correctly in treating Unit 46-07 as part of the charged asset and excluding the Applicants from the scheme’s list of purchasers. Applicants ‘claim is devoid of legal or equitable merit-the debenture in favour of MTB is valid and takes priority. 1 Post Winding Up - Section 351, 461, 482(b), 486(2) and 510 of the Companies Act 2016 - Whether leave of Court is required - Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant the declaratiory and injunctive relief sought - Whether the application is defective for failure to join Kuala Ibai Property Sdn Bhd as a party - Whether the Turnkey Agreement is liable to be set aside - Whether the Turnkey Agrement is liable to be set aside - Whether a permanent injuction ought to be granted 1 Whether the Court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to hear Enclosure 1-Whether Enclosure 1 ought to be struck out as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Order 18 rule 19 ROC-Whether these proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of Suit 532- The Insolvency Court retains supervisory jurisdiction to make orders necessary for the proper administration of the estate-Enclosure 1 seeks reliefs that are integrally tied to the Liquidator’s duties. It does not seek to reopen the merits of any previous litigation nor to adjudicate individual rights inter partes unrelated to the liquidation- It is therefore properly before this Court- Liquidator’s application raises genuine issues concerning the administration of the winding-up and the potential dissipation or improper dealing of assets- Liquidator appears to be acting within the bounds of his statutory mandate- the issue of preference overlaps with Suit 532 and that concurrent proceedings may result in contradictory findings- The present application arises within the insolvency regime and concerns the protection of the estate for creditors- A stay would not be justified where the statutory machinery of liquidation requires progress- Whether Company was insolvent at the material time- Section 528 places attention to commercial insolvency, not balance-sheet insolvency- statutory elements of Section 528 are met-the payment was made to a creditor, within the six-month window, at a time when the Company was commercially insolvent-the effect of the payment was to prefer that creditor over the general body of creditors, the creditor having notice of the Company’s financial state. 1 Summons for directions-the entitlement of the secured creditors to claim interest after the making of the winding-up order- whether the sum received from the Government of Malaysia forms part of the secured assets of the Financiers or is available to the general estate- whether, by operation of section 524(3)(b) CA 2016 read with section 8(2A) of the Insolvency Act 1967 (“IA 1967”) and section 4 of the Civil Law Act 1956 (“CLA 1956”), the Financiers are entitled to interest accruing after 29 August 2018- whether the Judgment Sum is subject to the security interests of the Financiers or forms part of the unencumbered assets of the Company-Section 524(3)(b) CA 2016, read together with section 8(2A) IA 1967, provides that a secured creditor who does not realise its security within the stipulated period is not entitled to interest accruing after the winding-up order- the provision does not confer a discretion on the Court-it imposes a statutory consequence- winding-up order therefore remained effective in law from 29 August 2018, notwithstanding the stay orders- It is unnecessary to determine whether there was any temporal gap between the various stay orders-even if the stays were continuous, they do not affect the operative date of the winding-up order for the purposes of section 524(3)(b)- The Financiers did not realise their security within the statutory period. Accordingly, by operation of section 524(3)(b) CA 2016 read with section 8(2A) IA 1967 and section 4 CLA 1956, interest ceased to accrue thereafter- the Judgment Sum became part of the credit balance of an assigned Project Account and therefore forms part of the secured assets of the Financiers- The Syndicated Financiers and Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad, whether in its capacity as a Syndicated Financier or as Government Support Loan Financier, are not entitled to interest accruing after 29 August 2018.-the Liquidator is directed to take an account of any post-winding-up interest charged or retained after that date and to make the necessary adjustments in accordance with law-the judgment sum forms part of the secured assets subject to the security interests of the Syndicated Financiers. 1 Post Winding Up Application – Leave to proceed action against Liquidator - Whether the Applicant has established a prima facie case of breach of Section 479(2) of the Act - Whether a prima facie case of constructive trust arises from the payments to a third party - Whether a prima facie case of pecuniary loss is shown - Whether there are discretionary reasons to refuse leave – Absence of Committee of Inspection, creditor resolution and the Former Liquidators did not apply to Court under section 479(2) Companies Act 2016 – Rule 142(3) Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 - Bona fide and reasonable prima facie case of breach of duty or misconduct - Supported by credible evidence - Actual or potential pecuniary loss to the company. 1 Post Winding Up – Leave Application to set aside vesting order – Section 295 Companies Act 1956 – Absence of full disclosure – Res judicata – Vesting order remains valid and binding – Whether the applicant is entitled to seek leave under Section 471 Companies Act 2016 to commence fresh proceedings to set aside the vesting order – Whether the principles of res judicata, issue estoppel and finality of litigation bar the present application – Badiaddin Principle – Judicial finality and access ot justice 1 Application for leave to pursue appeal in the name of company—Section 486(2) Companies Act 2016—Company in compulsory liquidation—Official Receiver declining to pursue appeal—Court’s discretion—Applicable threshold—Whether proposed appeal has probable or at least arguable chance of success—Whether appeal frivolous, vexatious or oppressive—Whether continuation of proceedings in interests of company or creditors—Underlying action alleging misappropriation of company funds by deceased director dismissed—Findings of fact and credibility against company—Unreliable and altered accounting records—Failure to prove personal receipt or wrongful appropriation—Rejection of documentary evidence—Section 90A Evidence Act 1950—Limitation—Knowledge of alleged withdrawals long before suit commenced—Appellate restraint against interference with factual findings—Proposed appeal amounting to re-litigation—Underlying suit found to be mala fide—Absence of exceptional circumstances justifying further proceedings—Speculative prospect of recovery insufficient—Official Receiver’s refusal and lack of creditor support relevant—Costs and delay militating against appeal—Leave refused—Consequential application to appoint solicitors dismissed—Costs awarded personally against contributory. 1 Post Winding Up - Whether the propsed interveners have a sufficient legal interest in the subject matter of these proceedings such that they ought to be allowed to intervene - Creditors has direct interest in the administration and conclusion of winding up - Whether the proposed intervener's debts have been formally admitted by the liquidators does not conclusively determin their entitlement to partipate in proceedings - Court to consider the satisfaction of creditor's debts. agreement of creditors and conduct of winding up in determining whether to allowe a termination - Absence of any objection from liquidator - Order 15 Rule 6 Rules of Court 2012 - Order 92 Rules of Court 2012 - Section 517 Companies Act 2016 1 Application for leave to commence proceedings against liquidator—Whether leave required where proceedings framed against liquidator in personal capacity—Protective purpose of leave requirement—Inherent jurisdiction of winding-up court—Companies Act 2016, ss 486, 507, 541—Applicable threshold—Requirement to establish prima facie breach of duty supported by evidence—Requirement to demonstrate real prospect of pecuniary loss to company—Mere dissatisfaction with conduct of liquidation insufficient—Professional judgment and decisions taken in course of liquidation—Alleged failure to accept offer for sale of charged properties—Authority of secured creditor—No binding offer—Delay in recovery of surplus proceeds—No proven loss—Investment of surplus funds—Unit trust investment—Alleged shortfall not supported by evidence—Late submission of RPGT—Responsibility of chargee—Solicitors’ fees, remuneration, meetings of creditors—Compliance with statutory procedures—Whether allegations speculative or vexatious—Protection of integrity and finality of liquidation process— threshold for granting leave is not low-what the cases require is clear, credible, and compelling evidence of breach, coupled with a real likelihood of proving loss-Leave refused—Application dismissed with costs. 1 Post Winding Up Application – Liquidators’ remuneration – Withdrawal of remuneration without Committees of Inspection’s approval - Whether the Respondents were entitled in law to withdraw remuneration from SAP’s assets without approval under Section 232(3) Companies Act 1965 / Section 479(2) Companies Act 2016. - Whether their conduct, viewed cumulatively, amounts to misfeasance or breach of duty requiring restitution under Sections 277 Companies Act 1965 / Sections 510, 541–542 Companies Act 2016 - Whether misfeasance is established - Payments were made to a company in which both Respondents held personal interests - timing of the withdrawals - Invoices and time-cost documents were generated only years later - No attempt to obtain sanction from creditors or the Court - Section 479(2), 510, 541, 541 of Companies Act 2016. 1 Posit Winding Up Application - Whether a former liquidator may invoke Section 487(3) of Companies Act 2016 after the winding up has been set aside - Whether declaratory relief may be granted in an application commenced by Notice of Motion under section 487(3) of Companies Act 2016 - Whether the declarations sought serve any practical purpose - Whether the Court can summarily determine the lawfulness of the transfers made - Whether the Court can determine fair and reasonable remuneration in this application. – Section 41 Specific Relief Act 1950 – Requirement of viva voce evidence, cross-examination, documentary discovery, and the full processes of a civil trial - The absence of a Committee of Inspection, a creditor resolution, or a court application under s 479(2) cannot be cured by inviting the Court to approve remuneration retrospectively under s 487(3) Companies Act 2016. 1 Judgment Creditor’s appeal against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar- struck out the Bankruptcy Notice- Judgment Debtor had also filed an application to set aside the said BN- the learned SAR erred in striking out the BN - reasons recorded by the SAR were procedural in nature; the BN was not dismissed on its merits- appeal under sections 92 and 93 of the Insolvency Act 1967 (“IA 1967”) and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”)-seeking to reinstate the BN- since the BN was struck out without consideration of its merits, the Court retains inherent jurisdiction to reinstate it pursuant to Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012.- Court’s power to reinstate matters struck out without adjudication on the merits- Judgment Debtor contended that once the BN was struck out, the only recourse available to the Judgment Creditor was by way of appeal, not reinstatement- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to reinstate a BN that was struck out by the SAR- Whether the BN was validly extended and duly served- Whether the sum stated in the BN exceeded the Judgment Debtor’s contractual liability- law distinguishes between a dismissal upon the merits and a striking out- Court retains inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 and Sections 92 and 93 IA 1967 to reinstate it to prevent injustice- The reinstatement of a BN in such circumstances does not amount to the reissuance of a fresh notice- merely restores the matter to its proper procedural position- Court has jurisdiction to reinstate the BN- requirements under Rules 97 to 99 of the Insolvency Rules 2017 have been complied with- BN was validly extended and properly served- The sum stated in the BN is lawfully due and not excessive- The Bankruptcy Notice is reinstated and declared valid. 1 Bankryptcy - Appeal to Judge in Chambers - Setting Aside Bankruptcy Notice - Whether the Bankruptcy Notice is fatally defective due to the incorrect judgement date - Whether the existence of pending appellate proceedings renders the judgement debt disputed - Whether the appellate are entitled to enforce the judgement debt independently of other co-judgment creaditors - Rule 95 Insolvency Rules 2017 1 Bankruptcy – Judgment debtor – Judgment creditor – Bankruptcy Notice – Creditor’s Petition – Appeals against decisions of Senior Assistant Registrar – Final judgment debt affirmed up to Court of Appeal – Quantum disputed – Alleged overstatement of debt, excessive interest and failure to credit auction proceeds or interest properly calculated- secondly, that the entire bankruptcy process is vitiated by procedural non-compliance, alleged fraud, statutory breaches, res judicata concerns, and abuse of process. – Whether debt liquidated under section 3 Insolvency Act 1967 – Effect of section 3(2)(ii) – Failure to file affidavit disputing Bankruptcy Notice under Rule 93(1) Insolvency Rules 2017 – Failure to show cause under Rule 116 Form 45 – Allegations of fraud, illegality and abuse of process – Pending collateral proceedings – No stay of execution – Bankruptcy court not forum to revisit merits – Hardship irrelevant – Appeals dismissed. 1 Bankruptcy - Appeal to Judge in Chambers - Leave to Commence Bankruptcy Proceedings against Guarantor - Finality of Judgement - Section 5 (3)(b) Insolvrncy Act 1967 1 Post-bankruptcy – Appeal to Judge in Chambers - Appeal by creditor against decision of Registrar – Application was academic has another creditor succeeded in suspending the discharge – Director General of Insolvency (DGI) has acted prematurely and in breach of statutory duty in issuing Notice of Discharge – Absence of investigation or realising known assets of bankrupt – Court’s supervisory jurisdiction – Full recovery is not a precondition for discharge – Whether the Registrar erred in holding the creditor’s application academic – Whether supervisory powers of the Court may be invoked to review the DGI’s issuance of Notice of Discharge when there are avenue for specific mechanism for creditor’s objection – Whether DGI acted unlawfully or prematurely in issuing the notice – Balancing Principle and Justice - Section 15, 17,43,55 and 73 of Insolvency Act 1967 - Section 86 Insolvency Act 1967 - Section 87 Insolvency Act 1967 – Section 33C(4) Insolvency Act 1967. 1 The Applicant, Patminderjit Singh Ruba, filed this application for a Grant of Probate in respect of the estate of the deceased, Gorbachan Singh A/L Gorbak Singh, pursuant to an Originating Summons filed on 9 September 2024 under the Probate and Administration Act 1959 and Order 71 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 1. This is the Respondent Wife’s (RW) application in Encl 75 seeking leave to amend her Reply to the Divorce Petition and Cross-Petition and to add one Lu Chiew Yit (NRIC: 770703-08-6922) as Co-Respondent in the RW’s Cross Petition under section 53 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act) 1976. 1 2. The application is opposed by the RH. 1 3. Having considered the affidavits, the written submissions of the parties and the authorities cited, this Court dismissed the RW’s application. 1 1. This was a petition for divorce filed by the Petitioner Wife (PW) and cross petition filed by the Respondent Husband (RH). 1 2. The parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and prayed for Decree Nisi to be made absolute immediately. 1 3. Although they did not contest the divorce itself they each individually made claims for division of the matrimonial assets, spousal maintenance, outstanding debts owed, liability towards cost of freezing embryo and IVF treatment and other claims. 1 1. This matter concerns the Petitioner Husband’s (PH) petition for divorce and a cross-petition by the Respondent Wife (RW) for divorce, monthly child and spousal maintenance, equal division of all matrimonial assets and damages from the Party Cited. 1 2. The PH’s petition for divorce is grounded pursuant to Section 54(1(b), (c) and (d) of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act (LRA) 1976 i.e. that the RW has behaved in such a way that the PH cannot reasonably be expected to live with her, that the RW had deserted the PH for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and/or that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of 2 years prior to the presentation of the petition. 1 3. The RW cross-petitioned claiming that the cause of the breakdown of the marriage was due to the PH’s highly intolerable and unreasonable behavior whereby he was physically violent and extremely aggressive towards her and there were many instances of domestic violence committed against her which caused physical mental and emotional injuries. She further states that she was unlawfully evicted and forced out of the matrimonial home on 22.10.2018. 1 [1] This is an appeal filed by N. Annandurai a/l Narayanasamy, the Respondent Husband (RH) against my decision dated 20.1.2025 made in open Court on the hearing of the Amended Divorce Petition filed by the Petitioner Wife (PW) on 18.4.2024. 1 [2] This decision is the culmination of 6 court appointed dates whereby parties appeared and a number of mediation sessions were attempted to resolve the impasse between the parties. 1 [3] On the final date nine months after the filing of the Divorce Petition, i.e. on 20.1.2025, the petition was called up in open court, the RH admitted that he had not appointed any lawyer to represent him nor had he filed any Reply and/or Cross Petition to the PW’s Amended Divorce Petition as directed. 1 [4] The Court proceeded to hear the matter summarily and allowed order in terms of the reliefs claimed in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Divorce Petition. 1 1. This divorce petition was filed by the Petitioner Wife (“PW”) against the Respondent Husband (“RH”) on the ground of adultery allegedly committed by the RH with the Co-Respondent. 1 2. The majority of the issues in this petition have since been resolved, and the parties have recorded agreed terms pursuant to the Consent Order dated 28.8.2024. 1 3. Hence, the sole remaining issue between the PW and the RH concerns the alleged “friendly loans” amounting to RM126,261.00, which the PW claims to have extended to the RH during the course of their marriage and now seeks to recover from him. 1 1. This was a divorce petition instituted by the Petitioner Wife (“PW”), in which she sought, inter alia, a decree of divorce, joint guardianship with sole custody care and control of the child of the marriage, an order for the division of matrimonial assets, spousal and child maintenance including arrears, against the Respondent Husband (“RH”). The PW is also seeking damages from the 2nd Respondent for alleged adultery with the RH which the PW claimed had caused the breakdown of the marriage. 1 2. The RH responded and cross-petitioned in October 2021 contending that the PW had conducted herself or behaved in such a manner that he could not reasonably be expected to continue living with her. 1 3. At the conclusion of the trial, this Court granted reliefs in part covering the divorce and claim for damages against the 2nd Respondent. The claim for child maintenance and other expenses were adjusted and allowed and more access provisions were accorded to the RH. The Court ruled that the PW is entitled to a half share of the matrimonial property and the sum equivalent value of her half share shall be deposited into a savings account for the Child to be applied towards the future needs and welfare of the Child. 1 1. Enclosure 13 is an application by the Respondent Husband (RH) to strike out the Petitioner Wife’s (PW) Amended Divorce Petition dated 15.10.2024 pursuant to O.18 r.19(1)(b) and/or (d) Rules of Court 2012 ROC 2012) and Rules 102 and 103 DMPR 1980. 1 2. The RH’s challenge to the filing of the Amended Divorce Petition is grounded on the fact that the PW had filed without first obtaining the Reconciliatory Tribunal’s certificate of failed reconciliation pursuant to the statutory requirement under Section 106 of the LRA 1976. 1 3. After hearing the application, I allowed the striking out on 13.3.2025 and awarded costs in favour of the RH. 1 4. Subsequently on 9.4.2025, the PW filed a notice of appeal against the decision. 1 This is an appeal filed by the Petitioner Husband (PH) against the decision of this Court dated 24.6.2025 which allowed the Petitioner Wife’s (PW) application to vary a Consent Order dated 18.2.2019 in relation to guardianship, custody care and control and terms of access of the child of the marriage (Child). 1 1. This is an application dated 27.8.2024 by the Petitioner Wife (PW) in Enclosure 26 for discovery against the Respondent Husband (RH) pursuant to Order 24 rule 3 and 7 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). 1 2. The documents sought by the PW are as listed in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Application which are reproduced below for ease of reference: 1 2.1 A list of all immovable assets (matrimonial property) in the name of the Respondent and/or held jointly with any other party (if any) within and/or outside the jurisdiction during the marriage period, including Titles, Sale and Purchase Agreements, loans taken, Assessment Taxes, Refinancing or Loan Settlement, Bank Statements from the date of loan approval until now, Lease Agreements and rent Received and the total amount received from any such disposals; 2.2 All bank account numbers together with account statements in the name of the Respondent and/or held jointly with any other party within and/or outside the jurisdiction form June 2002 until now; 2.3 All income received, including salaries, bonuses, allowances and dividends as a shareholder (if any) and interest. 2.4 Statements and insurance policies, Public Mutual in the name of the Petitioner, Respondent, and/or the children of the marriage and/or jointly. 2.5 A list of jewellery, not limited to the number of gold and silver bars stored and secured in the CIMB bank safety deposit box, and/or any other bank; 2.6 The Respondent’s income tax returns for the years 2020 – 2024; 2.7 The Respondent’s latest EPF account statement. 1 3. After hearing submissions from both parties, I allowed discovery for the documents listed in Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 as well as 2.6 and 2.7. Paragraph 2.5 was not allowed. 1 4. The RH is aggrieved and has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said decision. 1 [1] The Applicant filed this application in Encl 12 pursuant to rule 72(1) of the Divorce and matrimonial proceedings Rules 1980 (DMPR 1980) to enforce an order made in matrimonial proceedings for payment of an outstanding sum of RM120,274.79 via Judgement Debtor Summons (JDS) against the Respondent who is her former husband. 1 [2] The Applicant and the Respondent registered their marriage in February 2004. 1 [3] There are two children of the marriage, both daughters, aged 20 years and 15 years respectively. 1 [4] In November 2016 the parties filed a joint petition for divorce to end their marriage. 1 [5] The Court dissolved the marriage on 10.11.2016 allowing the Decree Nisi to be made absolute immediately. 1 1. This is an application by the Petitioner Wife (PW) dated 22 August 2024 (Encl. 22) under Section 96 Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA), Rules 56(2)(a), (b), (3), 57, 58, 61(2), 62(1), (4), 65(1) of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, to vary/amend the terms of the Court Order dated 12.12.2018. 1 2. The variation sought for is for the PW to regain sole custody care and control of the Child of the marriage. 1 3. Under the original Divorce Order, custody care and control of the Child of the marriage was shared jointly by the PW and Petitioner Husband (PH). 1 The Applicant is a Judgment Creditor, having secured a judgment against the Respondent in 2023, thereby rendering the Defendant a Judgment Debtor. To enforce the said judgment, the Judgment Creditor initiated garnishee proceedings against the Judgment Debtor’s accounts in 18 banks, pursuant to Order 49 of the Rules of Court 2012. However, these efforts proved futile when the High Court at Shah Alam, in Suit BA-37G-104-07/2024 (“Suit 104”), declined to grant the garnishee order absolute sought by the Plaintiff. The present dispute specifically concerns the Judgment Creditor and the Sixth Garnishee. Having successfully resisted the Judgment Creditor’s application for a garnishee order absolute before the Shah Alam High Court in Suit 104, the Sixth Garnishee now faces a fresh challenge – an application before this Court by the Judgment Creditor in Enclosure 77, seeking a stay of the decision in Suit 104, pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. At the heart of the matter lies the question of whether this Court has the power to stay the Shah Alam High Court’s refusal in Suit 104 to grant the garnishee order absolute. Put differently, the issue is whether a stay can be granted pursuant to a dismissal order. This overarching issue gives rise to another interrelated question, provided the answer to the predominant issue is in the affirmative: whether there exist special circumstances to warrant the granting of a stay. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal against decision of the SAR- stay of the garnishee proceedings- Interim Maintenance Order- Variation Application at the Family Court- relevant test for a stay of proceedings- any special circumstances- rare and compelling circumstances-Child’s welfare is off paramount importance-possibility of duplicity of action leading to unnecessary possibility of differing judgments by High Courts of concurrent jurisdiction- withdrawing funds at present might interfere with future variation arrangements. 1 Tatacara Sivil: Penggantungan Pelaksanaan Perintah Penjualan dan Penyitaan Rumah – Rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan – Sama ada wujud keadaan khas – Sama ada hak Plaintif untuk meneruskan pelaksanaan demi menikmati hasil litigasinya atau hak Defendan untuk mempertahankan kediaman mereka – A. 45 dan A. 55 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 − Kuasa budi bicara Mahkamah dijalankan judiciously − Petisyen perceraian yang difailkan belum dilupuskan − Bukan melibatkan soal kewangan semata-mata tetapi kehilangan harta perkahwinan dan keselesaan tempat tinggal anak-anak perkahwinan yang tidak dapat diukur dengan wang dan pampasan. 1 The nub of the present matter concerned an appeal by the Defendant (in Enclosure 8) against the decision of the Deputy Registrar dated 27 November, 2024, granting an order in terms to the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 1, which was an application by the Plaintiff for Directions subsequent to an Order for Sale dated 8 May, 2018. 1 The Defendant took issue solely with the Deputy Registrar’s determination of the reserve price. The Defendant argued that the Deputy Registrar had erred in setting the reserve price and further claimed that he was denied the right to be heard during the hearing where the reserve price was decided. 1 This Court heard submissions from both parties on two occasions—5 January and 20 January 2025. After considering the arguments, this Court ordered for the public auction, fixed for 21 January 2025, to proceed as ordered. 1 Dissatisfied, the Defendant has filed an appeal against the above decision of this Court to the Court of Appeal. 1 The following the are the grounds of this Court in dismissing the Defendant’s application. 1 1. Once, twice, three times an appeal. Such, it would seem, is the tale of the present proceedings before this Court, encapsulated in Enclosures 44 and 45. 1 2. It started with a Consent Judgment, recorded between the parties in 2016. 1 3. What followed was a succession of appeals and interlocutory applications, a long and winding road of litigation that has brought the parties once again before this Court. 1 4. By its decision on 23 September 2025, this Court dismissed both Enclosures 44 and 45 with costs of RM20,000.00. 1 5. Undeterred, the Appellant has now filed two further Notices of Appeal, dated 22 October, 2025, in Enclosures 110 and 111, seeking to challenge that dismissal. 1 6. These, then, are the grounds of judgment in respect of Enclosures 44 and 45. 1 Criminal Prodecure - Appeal - Magistrate acquitted and discharged the respondent - the prosecution appealed- the Respondent was charged with offences under the Customs (Prohibition of Import) Goods Order 2023 and section 135(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1967 - whether the magistrate had properly directed herself on the law and facts 1 Rayuan jenayah: sama ada Majistret khilaf apabila memutuskan pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie ats pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 384 kanun Keseksaan apabila memutuskan bahawa keterangan saksi pendakwaan tidak mencukupi untuk membuktikan wujudnya intipati-intipati pertuduhan-sama apabila tidak ada bukti dan keterangan bahawa tertuduh-tertuduh telah membuat ugutan sepertimana takrifan “ugut” di bawah Kanun Keseksaan. 1 Rayuan Jenayah 1 - permohonan untuk pemulangan sementara kenderaan - penyitaan di bawah s.80(1) Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 - sama ada penyitaan cacat - kuasa mahkamah untuk membuat pemulangan sementara tertakluk kepada syarat-syarat tertentu - kegagalan pihak menyita untuk membuat keputusan 1 s.80 Akta Pengangkuatan Awam Darat 2010 1 The appellant was convicted in the Magistrates’ court for an offence under section 385 of the Penal Code. Upon appeal to the High Court, after going through the appeal record and the submissions of the appellant and respondent, I affirmed the decision of the court below and dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals further to the Court of Appeal after obtaining leave. 1 The appellant was arraigned in the Magistrates’ Court Ampang on a charge as follows - 1 “Bahawa kamu pada 13/09/2020 jam lebih kurang 12 tengahari, di alamat No. 65 Tingkat 4, Blok Maya, Astaria Apartment, Taman Kosas, 68000 Ampang Selangor di daerah Hulu Langat, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan didapati telah dengan sengaja mendatangkan kecederaan kepada penama Nazla binti Hamzah, K/P : 790410-14-5720, umur 41 tahun yang merupakan isteri kamu. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 323 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama seksyen 326A Kanun Keseksaan”. 1 In the court below, after a full trial the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to ten months imprisonment. On appeal to the High Court , after due consideration I consented for the offence to be compounded under section 260 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the complainant who was present in person and ordered the appellant to pay RM 8000.00 to the complainant as compensation. 1 Prosedur jenayah - rayuan - rayuan terhadap perintah pelucuthakan lori oleh Majistret - sama ada Majistret gagal mentafsir peruntukan seksyen 80(5) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan Darat 2010 (Akta 715) terlebih dahulu mengenai sitaan lori yang menyalahi peruntukan tersebut - sama ada Majistret gagal mentafsirkan dengan betul peruntukan seksyen 80(3) dan 80(4) Akta 715 yang sepatutnya dibaca secara ‘disjunctive’ 1 Prosedur rayuan- sama ada Majistret khilaf untuk mematuhi peruntukan seksyen 163 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - sama ada terdapat kecacatan pada pertuduhan apabila tidak memasukkan elemen kedua pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan -sama ada kecacatan memprejudiskan perayu - sama ada kegagalan Majistret untuk membuat dapatan atas kecacatan kepada pertuduhan memberi justifikasi kepada Mahkamah Tinggi menggangu keputusan Majistret 1 Criminal appeal - appeal against conviction and sentence - accused charged and convicted under section 15(1)(a) DDA and sentenced to RM5000 fine and eight month’s imprisonment in default - whether accused was arrested before he gave his urine specimen - whether there was an arrest under section 31(1) DDA - whether the presumption under section 37(k) was legally invoked 1 Prosedur rayuan - sama ada Majistret terkhilaf membuat keputusan pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie apabila terdapat percanggahan keterangan saksi pendakwaan di dalam laporan patologi dengan barang kes dan pertuduhan - sama ada Majistret terkhilaf apabila tidak mempertimbangkan percanggahan jenis dadah yang dijumpai dalam urin perayu semasa ujian saringan awal dengan laporan patologi 1 In this appeal from the Kajang Sessions Court, the appellant was convicted for a charge under section 233 of the Communications And Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) (“the Act”). After a full trial, the learned Sessions Court judge found him guilty and sentenced him to a fine of RM 20,000.00 in default six months imprisonment. Being dissatisfied he appealed to the High Court, and after hearing the parties I dismissed his appeal and reaffirmed the decision of the learned Sessions Court judge (SCJ). The appellant now appeals further to the Court of Appeal. 1 The charge preferred against the appellant was as follows: 1 “ Bahawa kamu pada 26/07/2020, jam lebih kurang 9.11 malam bertempat di Pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Komersil, IPD Kajang, Jalan Semenyih, Dalam Daerah Hulu Langat, dalam Negeri Selangor, telah didapati secara sedar menggunakan perkhidmatan applikasi YouTube atas nama ‘Raja Emel’ dan memulakan video secara langsung yang jelik sifatnya iaitu; 1 “Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil gagal menjalankan siasatan dan tindakan terhadap laporan polis yang telah dibuat oleh Jawatankuasa baru kepada jawatankuasa yang lama. Ini yang menyebabkan di atas faktor kepentingan awam AJK yang baru ini telah membuat laporan polis” 1 Dan 1 “Apa lagi PDRM nak, apa lagi yang perlu rakyat rayu, merayu, meratap, memohon untuk PDRM untuk menjalankan siasatan dan tindakan terhadap laporan polis. Setakat itu sahaja laporan saya pada hari ini. Saya harap pihak PDRM dan pihak KDN perlu ambil serius terhadap rakyat Malaysia yang buat laporan polis untuk mendapat hak mereka tetapi dicabul.” 1 Dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain dan Polis Diraja Malaysia. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 dan boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 233(3) Akta yang sama. 1 Hukuman 1 Sekiranya kamu didapati bersalah dan disabitkan kesalahan kamu boleh dihukum denda tidak melebihi lima puluh ribu ringgit atau dipenjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi satu tahun atau kedua-duanya dan hendaklah juga boleh didenda selanjutnya satu ribu ringgit bagi setiap hari kesalahan itu diteruskan selepas pensabitan.” 1 Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Kesalahan rompakan di bawah seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada hukuman mahkamah rendah berlebihan atau terlalu tinggi - Sama ada Mahkamah perlu mengganggu hukuman mahkamah rendah. 1 Seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan. 1 Prosedur rayuan - sama ada hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah khilaf mengenakan hukuman enam tahun penjara dan dua kali sebatan bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang dihukum di bawah seksyen 39C Akta yang sama 1 Prosedur Jenayah - Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Perayu dituduh melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Sekseual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 - Perayu disabitkan bersalah dan dihukum penjara lapan tahun dari tarikh hukuman - Hakim perbicaraan tidak menyediakan alasan penghakiman di peringkat kes pendakwaan - Hakim bicara memberikan keputusan ringkas setelah membuat penilaian maksima atas keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan - sama ada kegagalan menyediakan alasan penghakiman menyebabkan prejudis dan ketidakadilan kepada perayu - sama ada sabitan adalah selamat dan hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah memadai dan berpatutan 1 - Rayuan di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 1 - Sabitan dan hukuman oleh HMS dikekalkan. Rayuan perayu ditolak. 1 Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman terhadap pertuduhan di bawah s.376 Kanun Keseksaan – kesalahan rogol bawah umur di antara bapa saudara dan anak saudara– sama ada penukaran Hakim Makamah Seyen telah memprejudiskan hak Perayu – s.261 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah telah dipenuhi oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang menggantikan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang telah berpindah – sama ada keterangan mangsa iaitu SD4 boleh terima report dibuat selepas tahun 2022 tahun selepas kejadian – sama ada elemen persetubuhan telah dibuktikan – samada ada terdapat kemasukan kemaluan perayu ke dalam kemaluan mangsa - sama ada pembelaan perayu adalah penafian kosong semata-mata dan pemikiran terkemudian – s.518 dan s.159 KTJ - hukuman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen adakah sangat keterlaluan. 1 Undang-undang jenayah. 1 Kesalahan di bawah s.14(a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017. 1 Sama ada Hakim Bicara terkhilaf mensabitkan tertuduh berdasarkan keterangan yang dikemukakan. 1 Sama ada terdapat alasan untuk menolak kebolehpercayaan mangsa. 1 S.14(a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017. 1 s.375 (g) KK dihukum s.376 (1) KK - Pertuduhan melakukan rogol ke atas mangsa bawah umur 16 tahun - Sama ada keterangan mangsa unusually convincing - sama ada keterangan mangsa berdiri dengan sendiri - sama ada terdapat keterangan sokongan - keterangan pakar bawah s. 45 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan, s. 408 – Kesalahan pecah amanah jenayah – Sama ada surat pelantikan perayu sebagai kerani perbadanan pengurusan pangsapuri adalah sahih – Sama ada perayu diamanahkan dan mempunyai penguasaan ke atas wang penyelenggaraan – Sama ada perayu bertindak curang – Sama ada saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah saksi-saksi yang kredibel 1 Appeal against conviction and sentence – s.471 of the Penal Code and punishable under s.465 of the same Code – a finding of a prima facie case was made at the end of prosecution case and defence called – issues raised - duplicity of charges - contravention of s.163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) - whether mere irregularity curable under s.422 of the CPC – whether testimony of PW4 tantamount to adducing evidence of bad character of appellant so as to show / insinuate the propensity of appellant to commit forgery thus inadmissible under s.54 of the Evidence Act, 1950 1 [1] This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the Sessions Court judge (SCJ) in the court below to acquit and discharge the respondents at the end of the prosecution case without calling for their defence. After hearing the parties I upheld the decision of the learned SCJ to acquit and discharge the respondents. The Public Prosecutor being dissatisfied has now appealed further to the Court of Appeal. 1 [2]The charge against the respondents is as follows: 1 “Pertuduhan Pindaan: Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 03 Disember 2014, kira-kira jam 11.40 malam di Azza Motor Network Sdn. Bhd. (1047795-P), No. 7A, Jalan Reko Mutiara 1/2 Taman Reko Mutiara, dalam daerah Kajang, Selangor, didapati telah mempromosikan skim piramid iaitu skim Raja Kereta dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 27B(1) Akta Jualan Langsung Dan Skim Anti-Piramid 1993 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 27B(2)(b) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. 1 Hukuman : Seksyen 27B(2)(b) Akta Jualan Langsung Dan Skim Anti-Piramid 1993 [Akta 500] 1 Jika orang itu bukan suatu pertubuhan perbadanan, perkongsian atau pertubuhan, didenda tidak kurang daripada lima ratus ribu ringgit dan tidak lebih daripada lima juta ringgit atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun atau kedua-duanya dan kesalahan kali kedua atau yang berikutnya, didenda tidak kurang daripada satu juta ringgit dan tidak lebih daripada sepuluh juta ringgit atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi sepuluh tahun atau kedua-duanya.” 1 [3]The original charge against the respondents was as follows : 1 “ Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 3 Disember 2014, kira-kira jam 11.40 malam di Azza Motor Network Sdn. Bhd (1047795-P), Jalan Reko Mutiara 1/2, Taman Reko Mutiara, dalam daerah Kajang Selangor, selaku pengarah Syarikat Azza Motor Network Sdn Bhd. (1047795-P), didapati telah mempromosikan skim piramid iaitu skim Raja Kereta dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 27B(1) Akta Jualan Langsung Dan Skim Anti-Piramid 1993 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 27B(2)(b) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” 1 Criminal Procedure - Appeal - The Respondent was acquitted and discharged by the Session Court Judge - the prosecution appealed - the Respondent was charged for an offence under section 12(1)(f) of the Passport Act 1966 - whether the Session Court Judge had properly directed herself to the law and facts - whether the fact that the Respondent was in possession of someone's passport satisfies the first ingredient of the charge - whether the passport holder's authority is crucial to determine the first ingredient of the offence - whether failure to call the passport's holder is detrimental to the prosecution's case for failure to prove the first ingredient of the offence - whether the test of "possession" under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is applicable to the Passport Act 1 Rayuan Jenayah kes rasuah - Pertuduhan utama s. 16 (a) (B) ASPRM - Pertuduhan pilihan s.165 KK - Pendakwaan dijalankan oleh Pegawai Pendakwa SPRM - sama ada prosiding terbatal dan tidak sah - Per. 145 (3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - S. 377 (b) KTJ - Kebolehterimaan perbualan telefon yang dirakam oleh Pegawai SPRM - s. 43 ASPRM - Anggapan bawah s. 50 ASPRM sama ada terpakai. 1 Pertuduhan amang seksual - seksyen 14(a) dan 16 (1) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 – pertuduhan melakukan persetubuhan di luar tabi’i - seksyen 377C Kanun Keseksaan – pertuduhan melakukan kekerasan jenayah untuk mencabul kehormatan – seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan – pertuduhan memiliki gambar lucah dan menunjukkan secara awam video lucah - seksyen 292(a) Kanun Keseksaan – penerimaan keterangan kanak-kanak – seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 – seksyen 18 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 1 This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya in convicting her for an offence under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under section 39A(2) of the said Act for possession of 46.55 grams of cocaine. The learned Sessions Court judge (“SCJ”) sentenced the appellant to seven years imprisonment. After hearing the parties I dismissed the appeal and maintained the decision of the SCJ. The appellant now appeals further to the Court of Appeal. 1 Rayuan - Sabitan dibawah seksyen 37 (3) (d) Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990 (ABE). Pembuktian di bawah seksyen 40 ABE. 1 Rayuan – sabitan dibawah seksyen 37 (3) (d) Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990 (ABE). Pembuktian di bawah seksyen 40 ABE 1 Rayuan atas sabitan dan hukuman – Perayu seorang anggota Polis DiRaja Malaysia (PDRM) - seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB 1952) - seksyen 39A(2) ADB1952 – Pemilikan- cannabis – Prima Facie berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan – Pembelaan gagal menimbulkan keraguan terhadap pihak Pendakwaan – kawalan dan jagaan-dadah yang dirampas- laporan kimia-raintaian keterangan – dadah yang dirampas berada dalam genggaman OKT-keterangan yang tidak selari dan bercanggah yang diberikan oleh saksi-keterangan - tatakelakuan saksi memberi keterangan- pengetahuan tentang keberadaan dadah Pembelaan – hak mahkamah rayuan untuk mencampuri dan memperbetulkan keputusan dan dapatan Mahkamah Bicara- Penafian semata- mata – samada manifestly excessive- Pemikiran terkemudian – Hukuman – Kepentingan awam- keamanan negara - dapatan HMS adalah tepat 1 review under section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Immigration - failure to comply with Regulation 39 of the Immigration Regulations 1963 - session court judge order forfeiture of cash money pursuant to section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code found in the premises - whether there was a procedural error to warrant the court's intervention 1 Prosedur Jenayah-Semakan Jenayah-Jaminan-Pemberian Jaminan-Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tidak membenarkan jaminan bagi pertuduhan di bawah s 39C Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-Tujuan penggubalan s 41b ADB-Sama ada hakim mahkamah sesyen bertentangan dengan s 41B ADB- Sama ada S41B ADB terpakai untuk S 39C-prinsip duluan kehakiman-Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ss 39C & 41B 1 Semakan jenayah- perintah terhadap pertuduhan- seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 (Akta 792)- bantahan awal terhadap permohonan semakan- mahkamah tinggi mengenepikan keputusan mahkamah bicara- remit semula ke mahkamah sesyen- amang seksual kanak-kanak- memasukkan kemaluan- pemenjaraan dan hukuman sebat- Kesan koyakan baru- koyakan lama ‘hymen’- laporan polis dan laporan perubatan- kesalahan di dalam pertuduhan tidak wujud di sisi undang-undang- isu pertuduhan cacat- defective charge- akta seksual kanak-kanak hanya terpakai kepada perbuatan fizikal- pengakuan bersalah di mahkamah bawah- pengakuan bersyarat- okt tidak memahami akibat pengakuan salah- adakah semkan boleh menggantikan rayuan- duplicity of procedure -ketiadaan exceptional circumstances- kuasa mahkamah di bawah s316 ktj- bidangkuasa mahkamah bagi semakan jenayah 1 Notis usul membatalkan pertuduhan cacat. S. 152, s.153, s.154, s.156 dan 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s.31 Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001. Penggunaan kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah 1 Prosedur Jenayah-Penghukuman-Penangguhan pelaksanaan hukuman-Pemohon disabitkan bersalah atas kesalahan di bawah seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan dan seksyen 384 Kanun Keseksaan dan masing-masing dijatuhkan hukuman penjara dan sebatan -sama ada Pemohon menunjukkan keadaan khas yang mana alasan Pemohon ialah keadaan mental Pemohon dan kemurungan yang dihadapi Pemohon dan Pemohon mempunyai alasan rayuan atas persoalan undang-undang yang bermerit 1 This is an application for a stay of execution of sentence from a decision of the Sessions Court Petaling Jaya where the accused was found guilty after a full trial for a charge under section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001 Act 611. The accused’s husband who was also charged together with her was acquitted at the end of the prosecution case. Her application for a stay was heard before me and after carefully considering the matter I dismissed the application as I found no special circumstances to justify a stay. 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas Corpus-Preventive Detention-Applicant filed for writ of habeas corpus-Challenges against the detention order-whether the mistake by the Home Minister's Inquiry Officer referring to the wrong date of the Police Investigation Officer's report and not rectified by an Affidavit was fatal- whether the test of "convenient speed" is applicable to the operation of section 10 of the Act when the Deputy Home Minister issued the restraining order after 55 days of the YDPA's recommendation - whether there was a delay of fourteen (14) days for the Police Inspector in commencing the investigation and submitting the Applicant's written Report to the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs and the Inquiry Officer of the Ministry of Home Affairs-whether the Respondents had acted in good faith when the Respondents averred in the Affidavit that he had forwarded the recorded statement in compliance with section 4 of the Act-whether there was failure under section 12 of the Act when the police investigation officers failed to attend the hearing of the Applicant's representation 1 Permohonan semakan bagi pengeluaran writ habeas corpus. Sama ada seksyen 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 Mengkehendaki Menteri mengeluarkan Perintah Tahanan dalam tempoh tertentu atau dalam tempoh kesegeraan yang praktik dan memberikan justifikasi atas kelewatan mengeluarkan Perintah Tahanan. 1 Habeas corpus - Tahanan di bawah seksyen 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Kelewatan oleh pegawai penyiasat kes dan pegawai siasatan KDN dalam mengemukakan laporan kepada Menteri Dalam Negeri di bawah seksyen 3 dan 5(4) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri dalam membuat perintah tahanan - Sama ada kelewatan ini merupakan ketidakpatuhan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 1 Seksyen 3, 5 dan 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 1 Permohonan Habeas Corpus - Akta 316 - Enam isu telah dibangkit semasa pendengaran - permohonan di Lampiran 1 adalah ditolak 1 Writ habeas corpus - sama ada penjelasan mengenai tempoh masa pegawai penyiasat polis dan pegawai penyiasat Kementerian Dalam Negeri menyediakan laporan masing-masing adalah kredibel dan boleh diterima - sama ada pihak Responden gagal mematuhi Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 1 This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum et recipiendum by the applicant against the detention order dated 21 June 2024, made by the Deputy Home Minister under section 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs, (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (“the Act”) for a period of two years. After hearing the parties I dismissed the application for habeas corpus. 1 Notis usul - permohonan untuk mengundurkan hakim (“recusal”) dari menjalankan perbicaraan – alasan-alasan permohonan – pihak peguambela dan hakim bicara pernah mengendalikan dua (2) kes sivil sebagai pihak bertentangan (“opposing counsels”) antara 16 hingga 20 tahun yang lalu – ujian yang harus digunapakai bagi permohonan mengundurkan seseorang hakim daripada mendengar kes adalah ujian bahaya sebenar berat sebelah (“real danger of bias test”) 1 criminal procedure-habeas corpus-preventive detention-Minister ordered the applicant to be detained for two years under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985-the applicant applied for writ of habeas corpus-whether yje expalanation by the Investigation officer and the Inquiry Officer in preparing the investigation and inquiry reports, respectively were credible explanation-whether compliance with Section 9(2) of the Act, read together with Rule 3(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Rules 1987 (the Rules) were mandatory or directory 1 Permohonan Habeas Corpus – Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan prosedur mandatori – sama ada Perintah Tahanan dikeluarkan bercanggah dengan Perkara 149 Perlembagaan Persekutuan - sama ada percanggahan catatan bahasa terjemahan yang digunakan melanggar prosedur mandatori - sama ada terdapat kelewatan TMDN mengeluarkan Perintah Tahanan di bawah seksyen 6 (1) Akta. 1 Criminal procedure-Habeas Corpus-preventive detention-Minister ordered applicant to be detained for two years under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 -the Applicant applied for a writ of habeas corpus- whether the explanation by the Investigation Officer and the Inquiry Officer in preparing the Investigation and Inquiry report, respectively were credible explanation-whether there was non-compliance with Rule 3(2) of the the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures)(Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1987 by the Respondent 1 Permohonan Habeas Corpus – Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Perintah Sekatan bawah s. 6 (3) Akta. - sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan prosedur mandatori – sama ada Perintah Sekatan dikeluarkan bercanggah dengan Perkara 149 Perlembagaan Persekutuan - sama ada Pemohon perlu dibekalkan Alasan Sekatan dan Pengataan Fakta - s. 9 Akta dan Perkata 151 Perlembagaan Persekutuan - sama ada pelanggaran prosedur mandatori apabila Pemohon tidak dibekalkan Jurubahasa Mandarin - sama ada siasatan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat dan Pegawai Inkuiri dijalankan dalam tempoh kesegeraan yang praktik 1 Permohonan Habeas Corpus – Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 (Akta 316) - sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan prosedur mandatori – sama ada terdapat kelewatan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat dan Pegawai Inkuiri dalam menyiasat dan menyediakan laporan statutori bawah s. 3 (3) dan s. 5 (4) Akta - Sama ada Menteri perlu menjelaskan sebab kelewatan mengeluarkan Perintah Tahanan bawah s. 6 (1) Akta - Sama ada terdapat percanggahan dalam rakaman percakapan Pemohon bawah s. 4 Akta - sama ada Pemohon dimaklumkan sebab penahanan bawah s. 3 (1) Akta - sama ada terdapat perlanggaran Perkara 5 (3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. 1 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB 1952) dan s.12(2) ADB 1952)yang boleh dihukum di bawah s.39A(1) Akta yang sama - samada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap kedua-dua tertuduh - tangkapan dan rampasan di KLIA - dadah disimpan dalam bekas / bungkusan yang bukan bekas / kandungan asal menunjukkan kedua-dua tertuduh mempunyai niat mengelak daripada dikesan oleh pihak-pihak berkuasa – dadah seberat 2,266.8 g methamphetamine – samada kedua-dua tertuduh adalah innocent carrier - sama ada keterangan-keterangan tertuduh-tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah dalam elemen-elemen pemilikan serta pengedaran dadah tersebut dengan niat bersama 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah jenis methamphetamine- Kawalan dan jagaan terhadap kotak-kotak berisi dadah – kotak-kotak untuk diposkan ke Sabah - anggapan milikan dan pengetahuan dibawah seksyen 37 (d) ADB - Sama ada elemen pengedaran dibuktikan mengikut seksyen 2 ADB - s. 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - penipuan oleh tertuduh - sama ada anggapan dapat dipatahkan atas imbangan kebarangkalian. 1 In this case the accused was preferred with two charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The first charge was under section 39 B and the second charge was under section 12 of the said Act . At the end of the prosecution case , the court with the tacit approval of the prosecutor offered the accused an alternative charge under section 12(2) read together with section 39A (2) of the DDA 1952 (marked as exhibit P30). After the alternative charge was read to the accused, he unequivocally pleaded guilty to the said charge as well as the second charge (exhibit P4). Upon hearing the mitigation by the accused and the reply by the Deputy Public Prosecutor, I sentenced the accused to nine years imprisonment from the date of arrest for the alternative charge and three years imprisonment from the date of arrest for the second charge. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. No whipping was imposed as the accused was 51 years old at the time of sentencing. 1 The following charge was preferred against the accused persons : PERTUDUHAN PINDAAN Bahawa kamu, bersama-sama pada 22/1/2022, lebih kurang 6.00 petang, bertempat di alamat No 8, Jalan Sg Long 32/182 Seksyen 32 Shah Alam, Selangor, di dalam daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati memperedarkan dadah berbahaya iaitu Cannabis seberat 4495.2 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dibaca bersama Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. 1 Hukuman: Jika disabitkan kesalahan hendaklah dijatuhkan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup dan juga hendaklah disebat tidak kurang 12 sebatan rotan jika tidak dihukum dengan hukuman mati. 1 At the end of the defence case I found the accused persons guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment and whipping of twelve (12) strokes of the rotan. The accused persons now appeal further to the Court of Appeal against the conviction and sentence meted out by this court. 1 s.39B(1)(a) ADB – berat dadah berbahaya 74.99 gram Methamphetamine – tingkah laku OKT melarikan diri – s.8 dan s.9 Akta Keterangan 1950 adalah relevan – pemilikkan dan pengetahuan s. 37(d) ADB 1952 di baca bersama s. 2 Akta tersebut – pembelaan ‘afterthought’ dan penafian – kredibiliti saksi-saksi pendakwaan – keterangan OKT bercanggah – hukuman – selaras dengan Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 1 criminal law-dangerous drugs-accused charged under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act-circumstantial evidence-initially the second accused was jointly charged with the first accused who died while in remand- the second accused was the passenger of a car in which the drugs were found in a backpack-the raiding officer and the complainant gave contradicting evidence on the existence of the backpack at the footwell of the passenger's seat-whether there was circumstantial evidence to implicate the second accused 1 Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-barang kes dijumpai di dalam bonet kenderaan yang dinaiki oleh tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai bentuk kawalan fizikal yang mencukupi-beban terhadap tertuduh untuk mematahkan anggapan tersebut-tertuduh dalam kes ini gagal mematahkan anggapan bahawa tertuduh mempunyai milikan fizikal-tertuduh disabitkan kesalahan dan dikenakan hukuman penjara 30 tahun. 1 - Undang-undang Jenayah - Tertuduh mengaku salah bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pengakuan salah tanpa syarat - Hukuman pemenjaraan seumur hidup dan 15 sebatan rotan - Sama ada hukuman wajar dan berpatutan -Seksyen 39B(1)(a) dan seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Seksyen 305 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. 1 Undang-undang Jenayah-dadah berbahaya-barang kes dadah didalam dashboard kereta yang disewa tertuduh-sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan, milikan dan jagaan ke atas kereta-sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai barang kes dadah-tertuduh melarikan diri semasa ditunjukkan barang kes dadah-sama ada perbuatan tertuduh terpakai di bawah seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950-pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie-sama ada pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan sebarang keraguan munasabah-Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, Akta Keterangan 1950 1 Seksyen 39B ADB 1952-Keputusan di akhir kes pendakwaan-Dadah dijumpai di dalam beg galas yang dipegang oleh tertuduh dan rumah yang dipandu arah oleh tertuduh-kegagalan untuk memanggil saksi penting-Mahkamah menggunapakai inferensi yang bertentangan (invoke adverse inference) dibawah sek 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950-Radhi's direction-tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan untuk ketiga-tiga pertuduhan. 1 Undang-undang Jenayah- dadah berbahaya- pemilikan- tertuduh 1 dan 2 telah mengedar dadah berbahaya - sama ada pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie- sama ada pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan mengenai dadah yang dijumpai dalam bonet kereta- sama ada pembelaan gagal mematahkan anggapan seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - sama ada sabitan adalah selamat 1 1.The accused was indicted on the following two charges : 1.1 Pertuduhan Pertama Bahawa kamu pada 08/07/2020 jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengah hari, bertempat di alamat No. 2 Jalan Besar Taman Hijau, 35900, Ulu Bernam, dalam daerah Hulu Selangor, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 377.8 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama. 1 1.2 Pertuduhan Kedua Bahawa kamu pada 08/07/2020 jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengah hari, bertempat di alamat No. 2 Jalan Besar Taman Hijau, 35900, Ulu Bernam, dalam daerah Hulu Selangor, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Cannabis seberat 232.1 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama. 1 2.At the end of the defence case I found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and whipping of twelve (12) strokes for each of the charges. The accused now appeals further to the Court of Appeal against the conviction and sentence meted out by this court. 1 Seksyen 39B ADB 1952-beban pembuktian di peringkat pembelaan-keraguan munasabah mestilah berdasarkan pada bukti dan bukan imaginasi atau sangkaan-keraguan terhadap lokasi dadah dijumpai-kecacatan pada borang geledah-milikan eksklusif dadah- 1 Seksyen 39B ADB 1952-Seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952- Seksyen 9 Akta Racun-keputusan di akhir peringkat pembelaan-isu berkenaan lokasi dadah dijumpai-isu berkenaan borang geledah-tertuduh-tertuduh berjaya membuktikan keraguan munasabah-tertuduh-tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan di akhir peringkat pembelaan 1 criminal law-drug traficking-posession and traficking of dangerous drugs-the accused was found carrying a sling bag containing the impugned drugs-whether the accused had raised reasonable doubt on possession of the sling bag and knowledge of the drugs found in the sling bag 1 undang-undang jenayah-dadah berbahaya-seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952- sama ada elemen pemilikan dan pengedaran dibuktikan-tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri-sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah penafian semata-mata apabila tidak dapat mencabar keterangan saksi pendakwaan-sama ada tertuduh membangkitkan pembelaan berfikiran terkemudian apabila tidak membangkitkan isu mengenai bag sandang yang dikatakan dibawa oleh rakan tertuduh ke bilik tertuduh yang merupakan saksi pendakwaan-sama ada cabaran ke atas kata-kata amaran yang dibuat di peringkat pembelaan merupakan penafian semata-mata-sama ada keterangan tertuduh dapat meyakinkan Mahkamah dan mencabar keterangan saksi pendakwaan 1 keputusan di akhir kes pendakwaan-Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-Tertuduh-Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan-dadah dijumpai di dalam dashboard kereta yang dinaiki tertuduh-tertuduh-seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1952 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah jenis Cannabis - Tertuduh lepas dan bebas - kredibiliti saksi pendakwaan - sama ada keterangan saksi pendakwaan konsisten dengan keterangan lain. Pembuktian elemen milikan - fizikal dan mental. 1 Dangerous drugs – trafficking - drugs found in a Wifi box on a table in the living room of apartment – apartment accessible by both accused - drugs pointed out by first accused person to raiding officer – alleged given by friend - denial of possession and knowledge – failure to cross examine a witness on a crucial part of the case amount to an acceptance of the witness's testimony - inference of common intention drawn from passivity and silence of 2nd accused when confronted with drugs - material contradictions in testimonies of accused persons – alleged outburst and friend handing box mere fabrication and recent invention 1 The accused was indicted on the following charge : 1 “ Bahawa kamu pada 18/06/2020, jam lebih kurang 3.00 pagi, bertempat di kawasan parkir kereta Tower (M), Empire City Damansara, Petaling Jaya, daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, didapati telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Cannabis seberat 2975.4 gram, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.” 1 At the end of the defence case I found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and whipping of twelve 12 strokes. The accused now appeals further to the Court of Appeal against the conviction and sentence meted out by this court. 1 Sentence - Drug Trafficking - plea of guilty - Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 (Act 846) - consideration - whether the Court should exercise the discretion - public interest - death sentence or life imprisonment 1 Perbicaraan penuh-pengedaran dadah-keputusan di akhir kes pembelaan-anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-doktrin wilful blindness-demeanor tertuduh-pengetahuan tertuduh-"innocent carrier"-tertuduh berpendidikan rendah-dilepaskan dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pembelaan 1 Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952- Keputusan di akhir kes pembelaan- Tertuduh-tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pembelaan-Dadah dijumpai di dalam beg yang diletakkan di dalam kereta yang dinaiki tertuduh-tertuduh-saksi-saksi penting tidak dipanggil semasa perbicaraan-seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1952 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran - Pemilikan – Tertuduh-terlihat dilihat mengangkat kotak berisi dadah dan melepaskannya apabila diserbu oleh pihak polis. Cubaan melarikan diri. Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950. Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah. – Sama ada elemen pengedaran dibuktikan - Sama ada rantaian keterangan barang kes terputus – pembelaan penafian semata-mata – sama ada menimbulkan apa-apa keraguan dalam kes pendakwaan. 1 undang-undang jenayah-dadah berbahaya-pemilikan-sama ada elemen pengedaran dapat dibuktikan apabila pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan elemen milikan, jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan-tertuduh bukan pemilik kereta yang mana barang kes dadah dijumpai-tertuduh tidak ditangkap di tempat kejadian apabila dadah berbahaya dijumpai-rantaian keterangan barang kes dicabar-kesilapan material di dalam Borang Geledah oleh pegawai serbuan-sama ada seksyen 64 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan juga seksyen 91 Akta Keterangan terpakai-sama ada peruntukan anggapan untuk pengedaran dadah berbahaya terpakai 1 Prosedur Jenayah-dadah berbahaya-pengedaran- tertuduh -tertuduh memperedarkan dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952- sama ada pihak pendakwaan membuktikan kes prima facie-sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan dengan hanya merujuk kepada gambar individu yang dikatakan pemilik dadah sebenar- sama ada saksi pembelaan adalah kredible apabila pihak pembelaan memanggil saksi yang tidak pernah dibangkitkan semasa kes pendakwaan mahupun semasa siasatan polis dengan tertuduh-tertuduh 1 Pertuduhan bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah jenis Methamphetamine - Tertuduh disabitkan bersalah - pembuktian elemen milikan - mental dan fizikal - Notis Alcontara sama ada memadai - sama ada pegawai penyiasat mempunyai tugas untuk menyiasat laporan polis yang dibuat selepas 5 bulan tertuduh ditangkap. 1 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - kesalahan pengedaran dadah - dadah jenis heroin dan monoacetylmorphine - kedua-dua tertuduh dipanggil membela diri seperti dalam pertuduhan pindaan - sama ada kedua-dua tertuduh berjaya membangkitkan keraguan yang munasabah dalam kes ini 1 eksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB 1952) dan s.12(2) ADB 1952)yang boleh dihukum di bawah s.39A(1) Akta yang sama - samada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap kedua-dua tertuduh - tangkapan dan rampasan di KLIA - dadah disimpan dalam bekas / bungkusan yang bukan bekas / kandungan asal menunjukkan kedua-dua tertuduh mempunyai niat mengelak daripada dikesan oleh pihak-pihak berkuasa – dadah seberat 2,266.8 g methamphetamine – samada kedua-dua tertuduh adalah innocent carrier - sama ada keterangan-keterangan tertuduh-tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah dalam elemen-elemen pemilikan serta pengedaran dadah tersebut dengan niat bersama 1 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - seksyen 39B - dadah cannabis - sama ada pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie - sama ada Tertuduh wajar dilepaskan atau dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan ataupun dipanggil untuk membela diri 1 The accused was arraigned on the following charge : 1 “ Bahawa kamu pada 23/06/2021 jam lebih kurang 4.00 petang, di premis Qbox Express Solution, No. 32, Jalan Puteri 6/11, Bandar Puteri Puchong, 47100, Puchong, dalam daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 11581.6 gram, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.” 1 At the end of the prosecution case, I found that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case against the accused. Ergo I acquitted and discharged him. The prosecution being dissatisfied have now appealed to the Court of Appeal. My reasons now follow. 1 Prosedur jenayah - sama ada pembelaan OKT dengan menamakan individu bernama "Robert" tanpa sebarang maklumat lain seperti alamat kediaman atau tempat kerja adalah mencukupi untuk menyatakan Notis Alcontara telah diberikan. 1 Prosedur Jenayah: Pengedaran dadah - pihak pendakwaan gagal memanggil saksi-saksi material- pihak pendakwaan gagal memasukkan sebagai keterangan hasil siasatan ke atas suspek-suspek yang ditangkap bersama tertuduh - kawalan, jagaan, milikan serta pengetahuan gagal dibuktikan - adanya akses oleh pihak ketiga ke atas tempat kejadian - ttertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah jenis methamphetamine- Kawalan dan jagaan terhadap beg berisi dadah – anggapan milikan dan pengetahuan dibawah seksyen 37 (d) ADB - Sama ada elemen pengedaran dibuktikan mengikut seksyen 2 ADB - sama ada pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan apa-apa keraguan dalam kes pendakwaan- sama ada anggapan dapat dipatahkan. 1 Tatacara Jenayah – tertuduh mengaku bersalah untuk pertuduhan pilihan. Faktor kepentingan awam dan pencegahan – dipertimbangkan dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. Tarikh permulaan hukuman pemenjaraan – sama ada dari tarikh jatuh hukum atau secara berturutan – faktor-faktor yang diambil kira. Seksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 Seksyen 292 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Pemilikan – Kunci rumah dirampas dari kereta yang dinaiki oleh tertuduh-tertuduh - Dadah dijumpai di dalam rumah di dalam beg bagasi yang diletak di atas lantai ruangan dapur rumah - Tertuduh-tertuduh bukan pemilik kereta - Tertuduh-tertuduh bukan penyewa rumah - kewujudan DNA individu yang tidak dikenali di dalam rumah - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai jagaan atau kawalan ke atas dadah dan mempunyai kuasa untuk mengecualikan orang lain - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah – Sama ada elemen pengedaran dibuktikan - Sama ada rantaian keterangan barang kes terputus . 1 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - jenayah pengedaran dadah - kes peringkat pendakwaan - sama ada TPR telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh - sama ada jurang perbezaan dalam berat dan kuantiti dadah adalah "fatal" dalam kes ini - sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi lain merupakan kegagalan yang material oleh pihak pendakwaan 1 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - samada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh – rampasan barang disyaki dadah dibuat dari laci di bawah tempat duduk penumpang hadapan kereta Volkswagon (kereta tersebut)- laci tersebut tidak kelihatan biarpun pintu pemandu / penumpang dibuka – laci tidak kelihatan kecuali jika ditarik keluar dari bawah tempat duduk - - reaksi tertuduh semasa tangkapan – kereta telah digunakan oleh isteri dan adik ipar tertuduh serta dihantar untuk car wash sebelum penggunaan oleh tertuduh - prinsip am undang-undang pihak pendakwaan mesti menidakkan (must exclude) kemungkinan orang lain mempunyai akses kepada kereta tersebut dan barangan dadah yang dijumpai di dalamnya itu 1 Pertuduhan s. 39B ADB 1952 – dadah jenis Ketamin berat 4030.7 gram – pengedaran s. 2 ADB 1952 – s. 34 KK niat bersama – sama ada ketiga-tiga OKT mempunyai pemilikan dan pengetahuan – tindakan OKT cuba melarikan diri – s. 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 – rantaian keterangan barang kes – identiti barang kes – kredibiliti saksi-saksi pendakwaan – hukuman penguatkuasaan Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 (Akta 846) 1 Pengakuan salah OKT dibawah seksyen 302KK. Faktor -faktor peringanan dan pemberatan yang diambil kira 1 Criminal Law-Murder-Defence of grave and sudden provocation-Accused charged with murder under section 302 of the Penal Code-whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were a direct consequence of the deceased's provocation- whether the accused had successfully discharged the burden to establish the Exception 1 to section 300 of the Penal Code 1 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman – Pengakuan salah untuk pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan – Sama ada hukuman mati wajar dijatuhkan – Sama ada doktrin “rarest of the rare” terpakai – Sama ada hukuman wajar berkuatkuasa selepas tertuduh tamat menjalani hukuman-hukuman penjara lain – Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, s 292(1) 1 - Pengakuan salah terhadap kesalahan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan. 1 - Sama ada Mahkamah perlu menjatuhkan hukuman mati atau pemenjaraan - faktor yang dipertimbangkan. 1 Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan Seksyen 292(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 1 The accused was initially indicted with the following charge : 1 “ Bahawa kamu pada 29/09/2019 antara jam lebih kurang 7.15 pagi, bertempat di alamat Jalan PS 2E, Taman Prima Selayang, Batu Caves, di dalam Daerah Gombak, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah melakukan bunuh dengan menyebabkan kematian ke atas Surendran Kumar a/l Rajandran ( No. K/P : 960929-14-6147). Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan.” 1 At the end of the prosecution’s case I proffered the accused an alternative charge under section 304(a) of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded guilty unconditionally and thereafter I sentenced him to sixteen years imprisonment from the date of his arrest. The prosecution being dissatisfied have now appealed to the Court of Appeal. My reasons now follow. 1 Jenayah – Kanun Keseksaan – pertuduhan pilihan – seksyen 304(a) 1 Tertuduh mengaku salah terhadap pertuduhan pilihan – pengakuan dibuat selepas 17 orang saksi pendakwaan dipanggil – Tertuduh disabit dengan hukuman 10 tahun penjara dari tarikh tangkap 1 Hukuman – sama ada hukuman yang dikenakan terhadap tertuduh berpatutan 1 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Tertuduh telah disabitkan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Hukuman penjara 34 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 12 sebatan rotan - Perbuatan Tertuduh lebih bersifat jenayah peribadi ke atas simati - Seorang anak kehilangan ibu dalam usia remaja dan memberi contoh buruk serta trauma kepada anak tersebut. 1 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: eksibit - rakaman CCTV masih bertanda ID - siasatan tidak menyeluruh - kegagalan memanggil saksi penting kerana pegawai penyiasat gagal mengambil tindakan dengan Jabatan Imigresen memastikan kehadiran saksi bukan warganegara Malaysia yang ditahan di pusat tahanan ke Mahkamah 1 At the end of the prosecution's case, I proffered the accused an alternative chare under section 304(a) of the Penal code. The accused pleaded guilty unconditionally and thereafter i sentenced him to sixteen years imprisonment from the date of his arrest. 1 The prosecution being dissatisfied have now appealed to the Court of Appeal. 1 Undang-undang jenayah-bunuh-niat bersama- seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan-sama ada intipati pertuduhan dipenuhi-sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh menyebabkan kematian dan membunuh simati-sama ada terbuktinya mesns rea 1 The accused was proffered the following alternative charge: “Bahawa kamu pada 30/7/2022 sehingga 31/7/2022 bertempat di No. 30, Jalan Hijau 3/15, Greenvalley Park, Bandar Tasik Puteri Rawang, di dalam Daerah Gombak, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah melakukan perbuatan yang menyebabkan kematian ke atas Nur Fatihah binti Abdul Qayyum ( No. KP : 220606-10-1004) dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kematian, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan mematikan orang dengan salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada membunuh dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan.” 1 The accused pleaded guilty unconditionally and thereafter I sentenced him to sixteen years imprisonment from the date of his arrest. The accused being dissatisfied with the sentence meted out has now appealed to the Court of Appeal . 1 seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - kesalahan bunuh dengan menyebabkan kematian. seksyen 300 (c) KK; Pembuktian melalui keterangan mengikut keadaan; seksyen 8(2) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Tindakan tertuduh yang melarikan diri; seksyen 32 (1) Akta Keterangan 1950- Akuan Nazak. 1 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman – Pengakuan bersalah untuk pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 3, Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 – Sama ada hukuman wajar berkuatkuasa selepas tertuduh tamat menjalani hukuman-hukuman penjara lain – Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, s 292(1) 1 - Pengakuan salah bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 3 Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971. 1 - Sama ada Mahkamah perlu menjatuhkan hukuman dari tarikh jatuh hukum atau secara berturutan – faktor yang dipertimbangkan. 1 Seksyen 3 Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 Seksyen 292(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 1 Civil appeal - appeal against the decision of the Magistrate in allowing the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant. 1 Contract - the intentions of the parties are to be gathered from the language used in the agreement - unless the Defendant can prove on the balance of probabilities that she did not receive the money, the court is entitled to make an inference from the wordings in the SPA that the purchase price was fully paid by the Deceased on the date the SPA was signed. 1 Evidence - the Defendant should not be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath - on the one hand she denies receiving the money and yet she avers the money was for a loan - it is trite that a party taking such approbating and reprobating position is not permitted. 1 Civil appeal - appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant 1 Contract - agent’s authority can be expressed or implied 1 Evidence - a judicial admission made in a pleading stands on a higher footing than evidentiary admission - any evidence which could be produced but not produced would if produced be detrimental to the person who withholds it 1 Civil appeal - filed by the Defendant against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant with cost after a full trial 1 Unjust enrichment - the Defendant must not be allowed hiding behind the issue of lack of privity of contract to negate the liability to refund the outstanding balance of the Loan when he fails to discharge the evidential burden incumbent upon him as to the utilisation of the money - the Defendant enjoyed the benefit of the Loan and he must be responsible to repay it 1 Civil appeal - appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge in dismissing the Plaintiff claim against the Defendant in meter tampering case 1 Meter tampering - burden of proof - TNB to establish that the occurrence of meter tampering - no automatic liability on any consumer in the case of an allegation of meter tampering by TNB - the court has the responsibility to determine whether there is any evidence that balances or outweighs TNB’s allegation of meter tampering – TNB cannot rely solely on the error found in the Meter as its only proof that Vision Craft had tampered with the Meter program - finding of error does not ipso facto prove that Vision Craft did the tampering of the Meter program - TNB still has the duty to convince the court or at least give ample evidence on how Vision Craft tampered with the Meter program. 1 Civil procedure - appeal against the Sessions Court Judge’s decision in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ application for an adjournment of the civil suit trial involving the parties pending the disposal of the 1st Defendant’s criminal case at the Sessions Court. 1 Adjournment of trial - the matter of adjournment is within the discretion of the trial judge and an appellate court will not interfere with a refusal of adjournment unless it appears that the result of such a refusal has been to defeat the rights of an applicant altogether or it is an injustice to such an applicant 1 - Samada wujud satu perjanjian yang sah antara pihak-pihak Perjanjian bertulis yang sah dan telah disetemkan walaupun lewat namun penalti telah dijelaskan - Samada wang yang telah dibayar merupakan deposit atau pinjaman - Beban pembuktian adalah atas pihak yang membuat tuntutan - Pihak yang memohon untuk gantirugi mempunyai beban untuk membuktikan fakta dan kerugian yang dialami sebelum dia boleh diberi gantirugi 1 - Tuntutan Plaintif telah terhadap D1 telah di batalkan melalui permohonan D1 di bawah Aturan 14A KKM 2012 - D1 memohon satu deklarasi di dalam tuntutan balasnya satu deklarasi bahawa SPA bertarikh 5.8.2019 adalah diisytiharkan batal dan tidak sah serta berkuatkuasa - Mahkamah telah pada 28.7.2023 dan 14.11.2023 telah memutuskan bahawa SPA tersebut adalah batal, tidak sah dan/atau tidak berkuatkuasa - Plaintif masih sengaja enggan menyerahkan milikan kosong kepada D1 walaupun Mahkamah telah mengesahkan kedudukan SPA tersebut sebagai batal, tidak sah dan/atau tidak berkuatkuasa melalui perintah-perintah Mahkamah - D1 diperkenalkan kepada Plaintif oleh salah seorang rakannya bagi tujuan meminjam wang dan ini diakui oleh Plaintif dan Plaintif bukan peminjam wang berlesen - Perjanjian pinjaman wang oleh pemberi pinjam wang tanpa lesen tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan selaras dengan Seksyen 15 Akta Pemberi Pinjam Wang 1951 1 Civil procedure - the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment against the Defendant - the Defendant submits that the application must be dismissed since there is a triable issue as the signing of the Statement of Accounts by the Defendant was done under duress and misrepresentation. 1 Civil procedure - the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment against the Defendant - the Defendant to show that there is an issue to be tried preventing the summary judgment be entered against it - the Defendant submits that the application must be dismissed since there is a triable issue as the signing of the Statement of Accounts by the Defendant was done under duress and misrepresentation - 1 - Locus standi - Rightful owner - Nominee - agent cannot sue or be sued on contracts that he entered into on behalf of the principal - Deed of Settlement - goes against the intention signing deed of settlement - Late delivery of vacant possession - unjust enrichment - laches - inordinate and inexcusable delay - slept on their rights - cquiesced for more than 12 years 1 - Locus standi - Rightful owner - Nominee - agent cannot sue or be sued on contracts that he entered into on behalf of the principal - Deed of Settlement goes against the intention signing deed of settlement - Late delivery of vacant possession - unjust enrichment - laches - inordinate and inexcusable delay - slept on their rights - cquiesced for more than 12 years 1 Prosedur sivil - permohonan oleh Plaintif bagi mendapatkan penghakiman terus terhadap Defendan-defendan - apabila semua syarat bagi penghakiman terus telah dipenuhi, maka beban akan berpindah kepada defendan untuk membangkitkan wujudnya isu yang boleh dibicarakan 1 Kontrak pembekalan dan penghantarserahan - tindakan Defendan-defendan yang tidak pernah menghalang, menyekat, memberhentikan atau menangguhkan barangan dan produk-produk yang diminta oleh Defendan Pertama sehinggalah Plaintif selesai membekal dan menghantar serahnya, merupakan suatu estoppel dan oleh itu Defendan-defendan dihentikan daripada membangkitkan isu itu bagi menafikan tuntutan Plaintif 1 - Samada Defendan berhutang kepada Plaintif sejumlah RM7,545,691.00 bagi Perjanjian Pembelian "Latex Glove Dipping Line" bertarikh 13.1.2021 - Samada mesin-mesin bagi talian 1 mempunyai kecacatan dan mesin-mesin bagi talian 1 tidak mencapai kemampuan mesin sebanyak 24,000 hingga 30,000 setiap jam - Saksi Defendan lebih kepada keterangan yang disampaikan oleh pihak yang tidak secara langsung terlibat dari segi pemasangan, pengujian dan pentauliahan Seksyen 91 dan 92 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Beberapa fakta gagal diplidkan oleh Defendan di dalam pembelaan dan tuntutan balas - Defendan mendakwa bahawa terdapat kecacatan dan ketidakupayaan mesin, namun isu-isu ini dibangkitkan terlalu lewat - Saksi-saksi Defendan tidak mempunyai pengetahuan peribadi berkenaan perkara yang berlaku - Samada Defendan mengalami kerugian untung sebanyak RM60,800,000.00 - Isu defek pada mesin-mesin tidak dipilidkan di dalam Pembelaan dan Tuntutan Balas 1 Civil procedure - the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ application for an order of discovery against a third party. 1 Discovery – incumbent upon the 1st and 2nd Defendants to satisfy the court that all the conditions for the discovery have been met - documents sought for discovery must be clearly and specifically identified to ensure fairness in the discovery process - by having the Documents described in general terms shows that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are pursuing a broad, sweeping and "catch-all" order against Northport - this approach if it is permitted would set a dangerous precedent by lowering the established threshold for discovery application and allowing parties to pursue vague and unfounded requests under the pretext of unfamiliarity would undermine the safeguards designed to prevent fishing expeditions in a discovery application - the failure to identify the Documents with sufficient specificity would render this application as a fishing expedition which the courts have repeatedly and consistently disapproved of and held it to be impermissible - the 1st and 2nd Defendants must not use this application to trawl the insufficiently identified documents with the hope of finding something relevant or useful to bolster their case. 1 Civil procedure – the Plaintiff’s application to enter a judgment in default of defence against the 1st Defendant and the 1st Defendant’s application for an extension of time to file the Statement of Defence and Counter Claim - the principle on setting aside a judgment in default can stand a guide in an application for a judgment in default of defence. 1 - Samada wujud satu perjanjian yang sah antara pihak-pihak - Perjanjian bertulis yang sah dan telah disetemkan walaupun lewat namun penalti telah dijelaskan - Samada wang yang telah dibayar merupakan deposit atau pinjaman - Beban pembuktian adalah atas pihak yang membuat tuntutan - Pihak yang memohon untuk gantirugi mempunyai beban untuk membuktikan fakta dan kerugian yang dialami sebelum dia boleh diberi gantirugi 1 - Aturan 34 Kaedah 2(i) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Memasukkan dokumen tambahan - Saksi dipanggil semula - Aturan 41 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 -Mahkamah menolak pemfailan ikatan dokumen tambahan - Jurat dalam konteks affidavit ini untuk memastikan bahawa deponent faham apa kandungan affidavit - arahan untuk pemfailan Ikatan-ikatan dokumen diberikan oleh Hakim Bicara sendiri dengan dihadiri oleh peguamcara yang mengendalikan perbicaraan 1 - Permohonan perintah penghakiman ingkar diketepikan. - Permohonan untuk memasukkan pembelaan. - luar aturan - pembelaan bermerit - Sikap sambil lewa 1 · Injunction 1 · Prevent Mischief 1 · Maintain Status Quo 1 · Serious Issues To Be Tried 1 · Oppressing and Discriminating Shareholder 1 · Balance of Convenience 1 - Permohonan kaveat dibatalkan. - pengindorsan kaveat persendirian - Dihalang memasukkan kaveat - keengganan Plaintif meneruskan dengan SPA dan PA - Defendan memungkiri janji - CAVEATABLE INTEREST - hak yang boleh didaftarkan atas tanah - kehilangan hak untuk menikmati kegunaan tanahnya sendiri 1 Civil procedure - two applications - the Plaintiff’s application for a summons for direction and notice of appointment for assessment of damages and the Defendant’s application for the assessment of damages be conducted by way of a full trial where witnesses give testimonies before this court - 1 Assessment of damages - no statutory requirement for the assessment of damages must only be conducted by way of full trial where witnesses are called to give evidence before the court - the court has absolute discretion as it thinks just to order the manner in which evidence of any particular fact will be given at any trial including the assessment of damages - in any assessment of damages, evidence can be adduced either by a full trial where witnesses are present or by exchanging of affidavit evidence depending on the facts and complexity of the case - where damage is shown but its amount is not proved sufficiently or at all, the court will usually decree nominal damages 1 Rayuan jenayah - rayuan oleh Pendakwa Raya terhadap keputusan Majistret yang melepas dan membebaskan Responden di akhir kes pendakwaan tanpa memanggilnya untuk membela diri – 1 Tuduhan mencabul - dalam kes melibatkan seksual, pada kebiasaannya ia melibatkan pelaku dan mangsa sahaja - untuk tujuan sabitan, kewujudan keterangan sokongan atau keterangan mangsa adalah mencukupi sekiranya keterangan mangsa adalah luar biasa meyakinkan - dalam pertuduhan yang melibatkan seksual di mana keterangan yang ada hanyalah mangsa, mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dalam mempertimbangkan keterangan tersebut disebabkan pertuduhan begini senang dibuat tetapi sukar untuk dibuktikan sebaliknya oleh orang yang dituduh 1 Akhir kes pendakwaan - tugas Mahkamah untuk menimbang sama ada pendakwaan telah berjaya mewujudkan kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh - sekiranya Mahkamah mendapati pendakwaan gagal mewujudkan kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh, maka Mahkamah hendaklah merekodkan perintah pembebasan - sebaliknya jika Mahkamah mendapati pendakwaan berjaya mewujudkan kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh, maka Mahkamah hendaklah memanggil tertuduh untuk membela diri 1 Rayuan jenayah - rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang memutuskan Perayu disabitkan dengan 1 kesalahan di bawah s. 13(b) Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 serta 4 kesalahan di bawah s. 323 Kanun Keseksaan dan 1 kesalahan di bawah s. 324 Kanun Keseksaan. 1 Undang-undang keterangan - bukan semua percanggahan menjejaskan keterangan seseorang saksi - Mahkamah perlu menilai sama ada percanggahan itu material dan menjejaskan sabitan 1 Dwi bahaya (double jeopardy) - prinsip yang melarang seseorang daripada diadili atau dihukum dua kali atas kesalahan yang sama - istilah lain iaitu nemo debet bis vexari (A man must not be put twice in peril for the same offence) - apa mesti dinilai oleh Mahkamah adalah sama ada kesemua pertuduhan yang dikenakan mempunyai intipati yang sama. 1 Inferens menentang (adverse inference) - apabila sesuatu keterangan yang boleh dikemukakan tetapi tidak dikemukakan yang jika dikemukakan menjejaskan orang yang menahan keterangan tersebut, maka mahkamah boleh mengganggap kewujudan keterangan yang ditahan itu. 1 Rayuan jenayah - rayuan OKT terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang memutuskan bahawa OKT disabitkan dengan kesalahan di bawah s.14(a) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 1 Laporan polis - aduan bagi membolehkan siasatan dijalankan oleh polis - laporan polis semata-mata bukanlah bukti bagi menentukan sama ada kesalahan dibuktikan atau sebaliknya 1 Keterangan dari kanak-kanak - seorang kanak-kanak dianggap kompeten untuk memberi keterangan dalam prosiding di Mahkamah yang melibatkan AKSTK sekiranya kanak-kanak adalah mangsanya - AKSTK memberi kuasa kepada mahkamah untuk mensabitkan seseorang dengan kesalahan di bawah AKSTK berasaskan keterangan tanpa sokongan seseorang kanak-kanak sekiranya mangsa adalah kanak-kanak. 1 Sabitan kes seksual - dalam kes melibatkan seksual biasanya ia melibatkan pelaku dan mangsa sahaja. Oleh itu, untuk tujuan sabitan sama ada wujud keterangan sokongan atau keterangan mangsa adalah mencukupi sekiranya keterangan mangsa adalah luar biasa meyakinkan (unusually convincing). 1 Rayuan jenayah - rayuan Perayu/OKT terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang memutuskan bahawa OKT disabitkan dengan kesalahan di bawah s.14(a) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 10 tahun dari tarikh jatuh hukum dan diperintahkan menjalani kaunseling serta diletakkan di bawah pengawasan polis selama 2 tahun. 1 Kawad cam - kawad cam hanya relevan sekiranya mangsa tidak mengenali secara tepat identiti orang yang melakukan perbuatan jenayah tersebut. 1 Rayuan jenayah - rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang memutuskan bahawa Perayu disabitkan dengan kesalahan di bawah Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 selepas perbicaraan penuh. 1 Pertuduhan - ketiadaan tarikh dan lokasi spesifik tidak menjadikan pertuduhan terhadap Perayu cacat 1 Keterangan mangsa - perbezaan kenyataan mengenai umur mangsa dalam Pertuduhan Pindaan Terpinda dengan keterangan lisan mangsa bukanlah material dan tidak menyebabkan keterangan mangsa ditolak keseluruhannya 1 Pertuduhan - s. 130V(1) Kanun Kesiksaan - dengan menganggotai kumpulan jenayah terancang sahaja seseorang itu telah melakukan kesalahan - memadai dengan menyatakan nama kesalahan berkenaan sahaja beserta tarikh, tempat, kesalahan dan seksyen dalam pertuduhan - kekurangan butiran dalam sesuatu pertuduhan bukanlah sesuatu yang material dan menjejaskan pertuduhan tersebut melainkan ia mengelirukan tertuduh. 1 • Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 • OKT meletakkan sesuatu ke dalam dashboard kereta ketika SP2 menghampiri kereta Proton Wira WHM 6217; • OKT menyerahkan 1 beg kecil (P6) kepada SP2 setealah diberi kata-kata amaran di bawah Seksyen 37B(1)B ADB 1952; • Samada Methamphetamine, Heroin dan Monoacetylmorphines merupakan dadah berbahaya; • Samada OKT mempunyai milikan serta pengetahuan akan dadah-dadah tersebut; • Samada pada masa, Tarikh dan tempat tersebut, OKT telah melakukan kesalah mengedar dadah; • OKT mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan memandangkan mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan apabila boleh menyimpan atau melupuskannya seperti diinginkannya berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan; • OKT sendiri menyerahkan dadah kepada SP2 • OKT sendiri yang memberikan maklumat kepada pihak polis berkenaan dadah di dalam kereta kancil JDK 2368 dan menunjukkan di mana keberadaan kereta tersebut; • Pembelaan menghujahkan bahawa tiada keterangan bahawa SP2 memberi kata-kata amaran di bawah seksyen 37B(1)(B) ADB 1952; • Samada percanggahan keterangan SP2 mencacatkan kes pendakwaan 1 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Samada dadah jenis Methamphetamine merupakan dadah berbahaya sepertimana disenaraikan di bawah Jadual Pertama ADB - Samada OKT-OKT mempunyai milikan serta pengetahuan akan dadah tersebut - Samada pada masa, tarikh dan tempat tersebut, OKT telah melakukan kesalahan mengedar dadah seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam pertuduhan - Dadah dijumpai di dalam kereta dinaiki OKT-OKT - Bag mengandungi dadah dijumpai dengan keadaan tidak tersorok - Hanya OKT-OKT yang menaiki kereta itu ketika pemerhatian dibuat - Exclusive Possession ke atas dadah-dadah - Seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes Prima Facie terhadap OKT-OKT - OKT-OKT dipanggil untuk pembelaan - Isu percanggahan lokasi oleh pembelaan - Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 1 - Seksyen 39B(1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Kes Prima Facie - Kes Pembelaan dipanggil - Samada dadah jenis Cannabis merupakan dadah berbahaya sepretiima yang disenaraikan di bawah Seksyen 2 ADB - Samada OKT mempunyai milikan serta pengetahuan akan dadah tersebut - Samada pada masa, tarikh dan tempat tersebut, OKT telah melakukan kesalahan mengedar - Dadah tidak dijumpai bersama dengan OKT - Dadah dijumpai di dalam kereta di tempat letak kaki penumpang hadapan - Kereta tempat dijumpai dadah adalah merupaka milik OKT - OKT mempunyai "exclusive possession" - "willfull blindness" - Percanggahan kenyataan saksi pendakwaan, namun tidak mencacatkan kes pendakwaan - Dadah tersebut jelas dijumpai di dalam kereta milik OKT Pembelaan gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah 1 - rayuan terhadap hukuman sahaja - ⁠mengaku salah - ⁠deterrence - ⁠rehabilitation - ⁠hukuman Yang dijatuhkan setimpal dengan kesalahan - ⁠jaga kepentingan awam - ⁠jaga kepentingan orang kena tuduh - ⁠umur yang masih muda - ⁠mempunyai potensi untuk berubah - ⁠moral yang tidak sihat hingga akan menyebabkannya terjebak sekali lagi dengan dadah - ⁠insaf dan serik dan tidak sekali-kali terlibat dengan gejala dadah 1 • Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Samada dadah jenis Cannabis merupakan dadah berbahaya • Samada OKT mempunyai pemilikan serta pengetahuan • Samada OKT melakukan kesalahan mengedar dadah pada masa, Tarikh dan tempat tersebut sepertimana pertuduhan; • OKT terkejut ketika SP6 memperkenalkan diri sebagai pegawai polis dan enggan membuka mangga pada grill dan berlari masuk ke dalam rumah • OKT mengambil barang kes dari atas almari menunjukkan pengetahuan di dalamnya ada dadah; • Samada dadah yang dijumpai bertujuan untuk pengedaran • Pembelaan berhujah bahawa Beg “Merry Christmas” mengandungi dadah tersebut adalah milik individu lain bernama Partiban @ Pattu; • Samada OKT boleh berlindung di sebalik doktrin “willful blindness” 1 - rayuan terhadap hukuman sahaja - ⁠mengaku salah - ⁠deterrence - ⁠rehabilitation - ⁠hukuman Yang dijatuhkan setimpal dengan kesalahan - ⁠jaga kepentingan awam - ⁠jaga kepentingan orang kena tuduh - ⁠umur Yang masih muda - ⁠mempunyai potensi untuk berubah - ⁠moral yang tidak sihat hingga akan menyebabkannya terjebak sekali lagi dengan dadah - ⁠insaf dan serik dan tidak sekali-kali terlibat dengan gejala dadah 1 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - SP1 melihat OKT sedang membungkus ganja yang terletak dii atas timbunan papan putih di hadapannya - OKT melarikan diri apabila melihat kehadiran SP1 - Samada Dadah jenis Cannabis merupakan dadah berbahaya sepertimana yang disenaraikan di bawah Jadual Pertama Akta - Samada OKT mempunyai pemilikann serta pengetahuan akan dadah tersebut - Samada pada masa, tarikh dan tempat tersebut OKT telah melakukan kesalahan mengedar dadah seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam pertuduhan - Kawalan dan jagaan dibuktikan melalui keterangan dari SP1 - OKT berada sangat dekat dengan barang kes iaitu dadah-dadah tersebut - OKT mempunyai pemilikan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai bersamanya berdasarkan keterangan saksi - Pembelaan menimbulkan isu identiti OKT - Pembelaan menimbulkan isu tidak memanggil saksi - OKT membawa keterangan penafian. 1 • Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 • OKT meletakkan sesuatu ke dalam dashboard kereta ketika SP2 menghampiri kereta Proton Wira WHM 6217; • OKT menyerahkan 1 beg kecil (P6) kepada SP2 setealah diberi kata-kata amaran di bawah Seksyen 37B(1)B ADB 1952; • Samada Methamphetamine, Heroin dan Monoacetylmorphines merupakan dadah berbahaya; • Samada OKT mempunyai milikan serta pengetahuan akan dadah-dadah tersebut; • Samada pada masa, Tarikh dan tempat tersebut, OKT telah melakukan kesalah mengedar dadah; • OKT mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan memandangkan mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan apabila boleh menyimpan atau melupuskannya seperti diinginkannya berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan; • OKT sendiri menyerahkan dadah kepada SP2 • OKT sendiri yang memberikan maklumat kepada pihak polis berkenaan dadah di dalam kereta kancil JDK 2368 dan menunjukkan di mana keberadaan kereta tersebut; • Pembelaan menghujahkan bahawa tiada keterangan bahawa SP2 memberi kata-kata amaran di bawah seksyen 37B(1)(B) ADB 1952; • Samada percanggahan keterangan SP2 mencacatkan kes pendakwaan; 1 - Seksyen 39B(1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - SP3 dan pasukannya telah membuat pemerhatian selama 5 minit dan mendapati OKT yang menaiki motosikal Yamaha 125Z sedang menunggu seseorang dan enjin motosikal tidak dimatikan - Apabila diserbu, OKT cuba melarikan diri namun tidak berjaya dan berlaku sedikit pergelutan - Hasil pemeriksaan di dalam beg sandang yang dipakai oleh OKT, SP3 menjumpai 49 paket plastic dadah disyaki syabu - Turut dijumpai di dalam beg silang tersebut adalah dompet, kad bank CIMB dan kad pengenalan OKT - Samada OKT mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah - Samada percanggahan dalam keterangan saksi pendakwaan adalah material dan bermotif untuk menganiaya OKT - Samada keterangan sokongan seperti cap jari mesti ada Pembelaan OKT adalah SD2 telah membawa satu beg biru dan meminta pertolongan OKT untuk menghantar beg itu kepada kawannya yang menunggu di Blok J - Ketika OKT sedang menunggu di bawah Blok J, tiba-tiba motosikal OKT ditolak oleh polis dan dia jatuh ke jalan raya dan pihak polis telah mengambil beg tersebut dan menunjukkan kepada OKT kandungan beg itu mengandungi dadah dan OKT terkejut - Samada OKT berjaya menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah pada kes pendakwaan 1 - Seksyen 39B(1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pasukan telah mengepung kereta OKT dan SP6 telah keluar dari keretanya dan menghampiri kereta OKT - hasil pemeriksaan, SP6 menjumpai (1) plastik hitam keadaan terbuka di atas kerusi penumpang bahagian hadapan mengandungi dadah disyaki heroin - Kereta tersebut merupakan kereta sewa dan keterangan menunjukkan pemberi sewa telah menyewakan kereta itu kepada seorang individu bernama Faiz - Samada OKT mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai - Hanya OKT yang ada dalam kereta ketika di tahan Keadaan plastik terbuka menunjukkan pengetahuan OKT Samada wujud keraguan pada kes pendakwaan apabila OKT mengatakan dadah dijumpai di dalam tempat letak tayar di bonet dan bukan tempat duduk penumpang hadapan - Samada pembelaan OKT menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah kepada kes pendakwaan 1 - Seksyen 39B(1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - SP2 yang merupakan pegawai serbuan yang telah menahan OKT-OKT 1, 2 dan 3 di ruang tamu rumah tersebut dan (7) paket plastik mengandungi ketulan kristal bahan disyaki dadah jenis syabu dan 1 kotak rokok di dalamnya ada (4) plastik lutsinar berisi ketulan kristal bahan disyaki dadah jenis syabu. Menurut SP2, barang-barang kes ini berada di hadapan OKT 1 hingga OKT 3 ketika serbuan - OKT 4 ditangkap ketika dadah-dadah itu telah dijumpai oleh SP2 dan pada waktu itu OKT 4 baru sahaja memasuki rumah tersebut dari pintu hadapan - Samada pihak dibuktikan terhadap OKT-OKT bagi dadah yang dijumpai di bilik No 1 tingkat atas rumah tersebut bagi pertuduhan di bawah Seskyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 - Samada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan terhadap semua OKT 1 • Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; • Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama; • Samada OKT-OKT mempunyai pemilikan serta pengetahuan akan dadah-dadah tersebut; • Samada OKT-OKT melakukan kesalahan mengedar dadah; • SP4 memberi keterangan bahawa barang kes dijumpai selepas pemeriksaan olehnya di dalam kereta Perodua Myvi dinaiki OKT-OKT; • Versi berbeza di antara pendakwaan dan pembelaan berkenaan bagaiman dadah-dadah tersebut dijumpai; • Kereta Myvi tersebut bukan milik OKT 1 dan beliau hanya memandu sahaja; • Kereta tersebut milik kakak OKT 2 iaitu SP1; • Anggapan bahawa ada individu-individu lain memandu kereta tersebut, telah memprejudiskan OKT-OKT; • Tiada barang peribadi OKT-OKT di dalam kereta Myvi tersebut; • Keraguan juga timbul apabila ujian dusting yang dijalan oleh SP6 adalah negative terhadap OKT-OKT; • Keraguan timbul berkenaan bagaimana dadah itu dijumpai; • Samada benar OKT-OKT mempunyai milikan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut memandangkan keraguan timbul berkenaan cara dadah dijumpai dan kereta dipandu bukan milik OKT-OKT 1 - Seksyen 39B(1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Dadah dijumpai di bahagian belakang poket seluar yang dipakai oleh OKT semasa ditangkap - Semasa ditangkap OKT di tepi jalan berhampiran kedai ECO Shop. Sebelum menahan OKT, SP3 dan pasukannya telah membuat pemerhatian selama 15 minit dan mendapati hanya OKT sahaja berada di situ seperti sedang menunggu seseorang - OKT telah bertindak agresif dan cuba melarikan diri Samada OKT mempunyai pemilikan dan kawalan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai bersamanya - Samada OKT mempunyai pengetahuan - Samada pihak pendakwaan berjata membuktikan kes terhadap OKT melampaui keraguan yang munasabah 1 - Seksyen 39B(1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah - Pemilikan - Pengetahuan - pemeriksaan didalam raga motosikal - jagaan atau kawalan OKT - Keterangan terus - OKT sahaja menunggang motosikal - Kedudukan barang kes adalah dekat - Exclusive possession - Melarikan diri - mustahil untuk kegunaan peribadi - Ujian DNA atau “finger dusting” hanya merupakan satu keterangan sokongan - Wilful blindness 1 - hukuman atas tuduhan pilihan - dihukum di bawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan - OKT telah mengaku salah - OKT seorang mualaf - OKT adalah pesalah pertama - Perayu dituduh melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum sehingga 30 tahun iaitu menyebabkan kematian yang tidak terjumlah kepada membunuh - Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara 16 tahun dari tarikh OKT ditangkap 1 - Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan. - Kesalahan bunuh - Mangsa meninggal dunia - Akibat daripada kecederaan yang dialami - Niat - Keterangan mengikut keadaan - Luka pertahankan diri - SP3 yang melihat OKT dan si mati bergaduh - Kesan DNA OKT pada hulu pisau - melarikan diri - orang terakhir yang dilihat dengan simati - Pembelaan OKT adalah mabuk - doktrin “last seen together - Seksyen 85 Kanun Keseksaan 1 - Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - OKT tidak mengaku salah dan perbicaraan telah dijalankan dengan seramai (8) orang saksi telah dipanggil. - Pihak pendakwaan telah menawarkan kepada OKT, pertuduhan pilihan di bawah Seksyen 304(b) Kanun Keseksaan - Hukuman yang diperuntukkan di bawah kesalahan ini adalah penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai (10) tahun atau dengan denda atau dengan kedua-duanya. - OKT kemudian mengaku salah - OKT bukan “habitual offender” - Mahkamah mendapati hukuman (4) tahun penjara dari tarikh tangkap adalah adil dan wajar atas OKT untuk tuduhan pilihan ini. 1 - Seksyen 302 KK - Pengakuan salah bagi kes Capital Punishment - Pengakuan dari mulut OKT sendiri - Pengakuan tanpa syarat - OKT mengakui fakta kes - Hukuman gantung di leher sehingga mati - Seksyen 293 KK tidak terpakai - Pembunuhan yang sangat kejam dan sadis 1 - Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 300 Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 304(b) Kanun Keseksaan - Pertuduhan pindaan dari Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan kepada Seksyen 304(b) Kanun Keseksaan menggunakan kuasa di bawah Seksyen 158(1) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah - OKT disabitkan di atas pertuduhan pindaan - OKT mengaku bersalah di atas pertuduhan pindaan - Seksyen 304(b) Kanun Keseksaan - Samada mangsa meninggal dunia - Samada kematian adalah akibat kecederaan dialami oleh simati - Samada kecederaan simati adalah akibat perbuatan atau kesan daripada perbuatan OKT - Seksyen 300 Kanun Keseksaan cabang (d) - Seksyen 17(2) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tindakan OKT merupakan culpable homicide not amounting to murder di bawah Seksyen 299 Kanun Keseksaan 1 • Seksyen 3 Akta Penculikan 1961 • Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan • Samada adanya niat OKT-OKT untuk menahan mangsa bagi tujuan mendapatkan wang tebusan; • Samada mangsa telah ditahan tanpa kerelaan; • Samada penculikan dilakukan oleh OKT-OKT secara niat bersama mengikut seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan; • Pengecaman OKT-OKT adalah lebih kepada keterangan mengikut keadaan (circumstansial evidence) • DNA OKT-OKT gagal ditemui di dalam kereta yang digunakan untuk melarikan SP4 (mangsa) • Rakaman CCTV dikemukakan (Ekshibit P101) tidak jelas dan kabur • Kegagalan memberi kata-kata amaran dibawah Seksyen 16(1)(b) Akta Penculikan 1961 kepada OKT-OKT • Samada bolehkah amaran di bawah Seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950 digunakan untuk kesalahan culik 1 Settlement Agreement - Supplementary Agreement - fraud allegations - specific performance - coercion - intimidation - undue influence - breach of contract - procedural matters - rule 5(3), 18(6), 18(7), 18(7A) of Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA) - non-compliance with filing rules - extension of time - striking out motions - Practice Direction Court of Appeal No. 1 of 2018 - oral grounds - written grounds of judgment - transcript of the proceedings - failure to file Memorandum of Appeal - similarity of the content of the oral decision as reflected in the transcript and the written judgment - 2nd scenario of Firdaus Khan - complete analysis of the issues at had raised 1 The appeal before this court is the Plaintiffs’ appeal against the entirety of the findings on liability and part of the findings on quantum while the 2nd Defendant cross-appeal is on liability of parties. Briefly, Plaintiffs’ claim arises from a road traffic accident that occurred involving three (3) vehicles between Plaintiffs, 1st Defendant & 2nd Defendant. Consent judgment was recorded between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant without admission of liability while Plaintiffs continued their claim solely against the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant closed his case without calling any witnesses or giving evidence himself. In upholding the decision of Learned Sessions Court Judge and dismisses both Plaintiffs’ appeal and the 2nd Defendant’s cross-appeal, it was held that failure to adduce evidence is not synonymous with admission of claim and that Plaintiffs must first establish liability before any burden shifts to the defendant. In addition to that, a consent judgment cannot erase the fact that an accident occurred and that the 1st Defendant was involved. In deciding the quantum of damages, the awards given are well reasoned, proportionate and firmly anchored in both evidential valuation as well as legal principles. Hence, both appeals dismissed. 1 In brief, the Defendants are advocates and solicitors. The Plaintiff was a client of the Defendants. The Plaintiff engaged the Defendants’ firm to prepare a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). Accordingly, the last day for settlement was 4 months from the date of the SPA. When nothing was received after 6 months, the Plaintiff’s wife lodged a police report. The Defendants demanded an apology and for Plaintiff to retract the police report and that the balance purchase price (“BPP”) would only be released upon such conditions were fulfilled. The Plaintiff through his solicitor, demanded the release of the BPP. As the demand went unanswered, the Plaintiff filed a claim in court. The Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that the delay was caused by the Plaintiff’s own conduct which had tarnished their reputation. The learned Sessions Court Judge allowed the Plaintiff’s claim and allowed some of the Defendants’ counterclaim. It was held that the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge allowing the Defendants’ counterclaim is set aside and the decision of the Sessions Court in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim is affirmed. The learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim which were undisputed but had yet to be released. However, despite no evidence produced, the Defendant’s counterclaim was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge. Evidences before this court shows that the Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof necessary to establish their counterclaim. Hence, the decision to set aside the Defendant’s counterclaim. 1 Land Law — Compulsory acquisition — Assessment of compensation — Market value determination — Whether JPPH’s comparative methodology erroneous in applying negative zoning adjustment — Whether failure to consider development potential and planning permission amounted to material error in valuation — Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA), ss 3(1), 12, 38, 40A, 40C, Third Schedule paras 2(2), 2(3) Evidence — Valuation reports — Whether JPPH’s report sufficient to rebut Applicant’s valuer’s evidence — Burden of proof on Applicant to establish prima facie higher valuation — Hoe Guan Investment v Collector of Land Revenue, Batu Pahat [1978] 2 MLJ 115 Practice & Procedure — Land reference proceedings — Role of assessors — Duty to disclose written opinions to parties for comments — Principle of transparency and fairness — Tegas Sejati Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Hulu Langat [2024] 3 MLJ 329; LAA 1960, s 40C Land Law — Additional compensation — Severance and injurious affection — Method of quantifying diminution in value of balance land — Whether loss of access or alteration of land shape due to ECRL project justified further compensation — Datuk Dr Murugasu Sockalingam v Superintendent of Lands & Surveys, Sarawak [1983] 2 MLJ 336; Joseph Ting v Superintendent of Lands & Surveys, Kuching [2011] 1 LNS 1478. 1 Rujukan Tanah – Pampasan – Kaedah perbandingan dalam menentukan harga pasaran – Prinsip penentuan harga pasaran - Harga jualan tanah terkini, transaksi akhir & terkini tanah, prinsip willing vendor and willing purchaser serta transaksi bona fide – Keperluan mengemukakan pendapat pengapit kepada kepada pihak-pihak yang terbabit dalam Prosiding Rujukan Tanah – Award Pentadbir Tanah dikekalkan. 1 Company Law — Contract — Sale and Purchase Agreement for Bauxite minerals — Customs Act 1967 — Export Permit (Borang K2) — Breach of contract for failure to secure Export Permit under Borang K2 — Refund of purchase price ordered. Arbitration clause not invoked within contractual lifespan — Right to arbitrate dismissed. Corporate veil — piercing and lifting in interest of justice — Applicable test: Solid Investment Ltd v Alcatel Lucent (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] 3 CLJ 73; Gurbachan Singh v Vellasamy [2015] 1 MLJ 773; Giga Engineering v Yip Chee Seng [2015] 9 CLJ 537 — consolidated in Chanel v Melwani2 International Sdn Bhd [2017] 6 CLJ 567. Conditions: fraud, evasion of liability, abuse of corporate personality. Evidence established 1st Defendant’s failure and abuse of corporate structure. Corporate veil lifted — 2nd–4th Defendants (directors) held jointly and severally liable with 1st Defendant. Principle reaffirmed: oral evidence must be evaluated against the contemporenous documentary evidence (Tindok Besar Estate v Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229, FC). Claim allowed with costs. 1 Civil procedure — Intervention — Addition of parties — O. 15 r. 6 Rules of Court 2012 — Whether applicants’ rights or liabilities directly affected — Consent judgment — Leave to intervene — Leave to file statement of claim — Just and convenient Legal profession — Law firm — Partners’ authority — Alleged lack of mandate — Consent judgment entered without instructions — Whether interests of partners directly affected Practice and procedure — Service of process — Alleged defective service — Compliance with Rules of Court Court’s discretion — Trite principles — Applicant need only show existence of issue connected to relief claimed — Commercial interest alone insufficient Outcome - Application for intervention allowed — 4th–6th Plaintiffs granted leave to intervene and to file statement of claim to set aside or amend consent judgment dated 7.2.2025. 1 Pliding - Pemfailan afidavit - peruntukan A. 32 K. 13(2)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 terpakai. Perlombongan — Injunksi ex parte — Prinsip yang terpakai apabila injunksi diketepikan — Prinsip undertaking as to damages diguna pakai — Kewujudan injunksi halang aktiviti perlombongan, pengeluaran dan pemprosesan bijih besi — Penilaian gantirugi berasaskan kerugian langsung (direct loss for breach of contract), penalti dibayar kepada pihak ketiga, kehilangan pendapatan, kos guaman dan fi penilaian dan juruperunding — Dalam menentukan kuantum yang adil dan saksama, prinsip dalam Amar Singh v Chin Kiew [1960] 1 LNS 5 dan Goo Sing Kar v Dato’ Lim Ah Chap [2013] 2 CLJ 936 dirujuk — Anggaran gantirugi bbudi bicara Mahkamah. 1 Civil procedure — Striking out — Order 18 r.19(1)(a),(b),(c),(d) Rules of Court 2012 — Whether claim plainly and obviously unsustainable — applicable principle in Bandar Builders — Summary process to be exercised sparingly — Expiry of mining lease upon death of holder — Alleged mistake of law and frustration — Whether agreement void — Mixed questions of fact and law requiring full trial 1 Civil procedure — whether dismissal of striking out action appealable — s. 68(1)(f) to read together with ss.67 and 3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 — Principles in MT Ventures Sdn Bhd & Anor — Appeals filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants against this Court’s dismissals of their striking out application fall within the permissible appeals as set out in MT Ventures. 1 Practice and procedure — Locus standi — Plaintiff’s capacity to sue — Interpretation of contractual recitals and alleged state approval — Not suitable for determination on affidavit evidence 1 A Sale and Purchase Agreement was entered between Plaintff and D1 in 2014. The Certificate of Completion and Compliance (“CCC”) was issued in 2015. The Plaintiff commenced occupation of the property in 2016. From 2017 onwards, The Plaintiff discovered various defects. Complaints were made but no satisfactory remedial action was taken. Consequently, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) in 2020 and engaged a professional engineering firm in 2021 to inspect the property. Following the report dated 28/3/2022, Plaintiff filed for this action. Defendants, instead of filing their statement of defence, filed application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the basis of time barred. It was held that there are mixed questions of fact and law in the present case where it cannot be conclusively determined on affidavit evidence only. Furthermore, Order 18 requires parties to specifically plead Limitation of Act if they wish to rely on it in their defence. However, no statement of defence has yet been filed by the Defendants. Hence, the Defendants’ application to strike out is dismissed with cost. 1 Permohonan Pembatalan Pliding di bawah A. 18 k. 19(1)(a) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012– Kausa tindakan: tuntutan deklarasi ketidaksahan tindakan defendan menolak permohonan kelulusan pelan bangunan berserta tuntutan gantirugi – Keputusan: Permohonan Defendan dibenarkan kerana tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan tidak mendedahkan sebarang kausa tindakan yang munasabah dan merupakan salahguna proses Mahkamah – Pembatalan pliding tanpa prejudis, Plaintif tidak dihalang dari meneruskan tindakan Semakan Kehakiman terhadap Defendan berkaitan fakta dan isu yang sama 1 The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a piece of land in concern. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendants vacate the said Land, but they refused, asserting customary rights over the land. The Plaintiff then applied for summary judgment. It was held that the Defendants’ claim is unsupported by gazettement, documentary proof or any counterclaim for declaratory relief. The Defendants have failed to take any procedural or substantive step to displace the Plaintiff’s indefeasible title. Thus, does not constitute a triable issue capable of defeating the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. Hence, the application for summary judgment by Plaintiff was allowed. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Tuntutan berkenaan pelaksanaan writ penyitaan dan penjualan harta Plaintif - Harta-harta disita bukan milik penghutang penghakiman - Tuntutan dibenarkan dan gantirugi. 1 Contract — Housing development — Sale and purchase agreement (Schedule G & I) — Clause 15 — Party wall specification — Change of building material — Precast concrete panel vs clay brick — Whether unilateral variation permitted — Consent of purchaser — Approved building plans — Statutory approval — Breach of contract Housing law — Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 — Fourth Schedule specifications — Approved plans — Deviation — Requirement of written consent — Effect of superior material — Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 Evidence — Burden of proof — Developer’s witness — Admissions — Absence of purchaser consent — Absence of authority approval — Findings of fact Interpretation of contract — Plain meaning rule — Intention of parties — No room for implication — Court bound by express terms Remedies — Declaratory relief — Costs — Claim dismissed 1 The deceased, Hong Keat Seng (“HKS”), passed away in 2002 leaving behind six immovable properties (“the properties”) to the Plaintiffs. Following HKS’s death, the Defendant’s mother instructed the Defendant, who is HKS’s brother to oversee and manage matters relating to the properties. The plaintiffs are fully aware of the Defendant’s role in managing the properties from 2002 until 2023 without any interruption. In 2023, the Defendant informed the 2nd Plaintiff of his intention to relinquish responsibility for the management of the properties due to his age. The Plaintiffs suspected mismanagement on Defendant’s part. These suspicions led to the filing of the present application for pre-action discovery pursuant to Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). Through this application, the Plaintiffs seek disclosure of documents relating to the properties. Having satisfied all the requirements under the rule, the court allowed the Plaintiffs’ application. Dissatisfied, the Defendant appealed. 1 The Plaintiff is seeking leave to rectify and amend two security documents executed between the Plaintiff and D1 alone yet the case was filed against D1 & D2. It was discovered that there is no executed or enforceable contract between the Plaintiff and D2. D2 was not a party to the security documents or that she undertook any contractual obligation towards the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s claim rests on documents that D2 never signed and no pleaded facts establish an obligation on her part. Provisions relied upon by the Plaintiff’s solicitor presuppose the existence of a pre-existing legal obligation. In the present case, no such obligation exists on the part of D2 and the Plaintiff cannot rely on the statute to create an obligation where none exists. The Plaintiff’s application is therefore dismissed with no costs and the Plaintiff has since filed a notice of appeal against this decision 1 Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia while the Defendant is a licensed financial institution and act as the financier to a third party, Gebeng Jaya Sdn Bhd (“Gebeng Jaya”). As security for the financing, Gebeng Jaya charged its land (“the Land”) to the Defendant. Ultimately Gebeng Jaya defaulted payment to the Defendant. Exercising its rights under the National Land Code (“NLC”), the Defendant obtained an Order for Sale in 2020. In 2023, Gebeng Jaya entered into a sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) with Plaintiff in respect of the Land. As such, the Defendant issued various redemption statements to the Plaintiff. Following that, the Plaintiff lodged a private caveat over the Land. However, the sale fell through due to a dispute between the parties. Now, the Plaintiff filed this action to restrain the Defendant from auctioning the Land. The Defendant through its counterclaim, seek the removal of the private caveat as the Plaintiff has no registrable or caveatable interest under Section 323 NLC. It was held that the Plaintiff’s interest is contractual rather than proprietary. The caveat cannot be maintained under NLC as it obstructs the Defendant from exercising its statutory powers over the land. Hence the Defendant’s counterclaim is allowed. The private caveat lodged by the Plaintiff is ordered to be removed. 1 Kewarganegaraan — Semakan Kehakiman — Permohonan di bawah Perkara 15A Perlembagaan Persekutuan ditolak - Permohonan lewat difailkan melebihi tempoh 3 bulan yang ditetapkan menurut A 53 Kaedah 3(6) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Pemohon gagal memberi penjelasan mengenai kelewatan melampau - Mahkamah masih mempunyai kuasa menyemak keputusan eksekutif walaupun wujud privative clause di Perkara 31 dibaca bersama seksyen 2 Bahagian III Jadual Kedua Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan selaras prinsip dalam Lim Jen Hsian [2018] 6 MLJ 548 dan Mak Sik Kwong [1975] 2 MLJ 175 — Isu jus soli dan jus sanguinis serta status perkahwinan ibu bapa relevan — Pemohon gagal menunjukkan bahawa terdapat sebarang bentuk illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness atau niat jahat dalam keputusan yang dibuat oleh R2 dan R3 — Mahkamah menolak perintah certiorari, deklarasi dan mandamus substantif, namun membenarkan pemohon memperoleh borang kewarganegaraan dan bebas memohon di bawah peruntukan lain Perlembagaan. 1 Company law — Winding up — Fortuna injunction — Stay of winding-up petition — Prohibition against presentation/continuation of petition — Companies Act 2016 s. 465(1)(e) 1 Insolvency — Bona fide dispute on debt — Retention sum under deed of settlement — Whether debt genuinely disputed on substantial grounds — Debt forming subject matter of pending civil suit 1 Practice and procedure — Abuse of winding-up jurisdiction — Winding up as pressure tactic — Draconian remedy — Alternative forum more appropriate 1 Injunctions — Fortuna Holdings principles — Irreparable damage — Petition with no reasonable prospect of success — Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd v Muniammah Muniandy applied 1 Evidence — Financial solvency — Going concern — Ongoing projects, future income and banking facilities — No commercial insolvency shown 1 Outcome – Fortuna injunction allowed — Winding-up petition stayed pending disposal of related civil suit — Costs awarded 1 Company law — Winding up — Post-winding-up proceedings — Application to set aside winding-up order — s. 493 Companies Act 2016 — Discretion of court Insolvency — Liquidator’s powers — Official Receiver — Control and realization of company assets — ss. 483, 486, 487 and Twelfth Schedule Companies Act 2016 Insolvency — Pari passu principle — Equality of unsecured creditors — Direct payment to single creditor — Whether unlawful preference — ss. 527(2), 528(1) Companies Act 2016 Practice and procedure — Functus officio — Directors’ lack of authority after winding-up order — Abuse of winding-up process Remedies — Restitution — Order for repayment to liquidator — Protection of general body of creditors Outcome – Application dismissed — Payment of RM138,560.01 made to first respondent declared improper — Sum ordered to be repaid to Official Receiver/liquidator. 1 Insolvency — Bankruptcy — Leave to institute bankruptcy proceedings — s. 5(3)(b) Insolvency Act 1967 — Appeal against Registrar’s order — Scope of court’s review Guarantee — Commercial guarantee — Not a social guarantee — s. 2 Insolvency Act 1967 — Personal liability of guarantor — Joint and several obligations Insolvency — Exhaustion of execution remedies — s. 5(4) Insolvency Act 1967 — Whether creditor required to exhaust all modes listed in s. 5(6) — Futility principle — Principal debtor wound up Company insolvency — Effect of winding-up of principal debtor — Assets vesting in liquidator — Creditor precluded from further execution — Bankruptcy against guarantor proper 1 Practice and procedure — Service — Substituted service — Delay in appointing solicitor — No procedural injustice Appeal — Registrar’s discretion — No appealable error — Appellate restraint Outcome – Appeal dismissed — Registrar’s order granting leave to commence bankruptcy proceedings affirmed 1 Criminal law — Sexual offences against children — Physical sexual assault — s. 14(a) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (Act 792) — Victim aged 11 years — Touching of breast — Actus reus and mens rea proved Evidence — Child witness — Competency — Unsworn evidence — s. 18 Act 792 — Whether corroboration required — Evidence found unusually convincing — Conviction safe Criminal procedure — Close of prosecution case — Prima facie case — Accused called to enter defence — Proper exercise of judicial discretion Appeal — Findings of fact — Trial judge’s evaluation of credibility — Defence version rejected — No misdirection — Appellate restraint Sentence — Imprisonment and caning — Accused above 50 years — Caning permitted under s. 25 Act 792 — Rehabilitation counselling (s. 26) — Police supervision (s. 27) — Sentencing principles — Proportionality — Public interest Appeal against sentence — Prosecution and defence appeals — Sentence neither manifestly excessive nor manifestly inadequate Outcome – Appeal by Public Prosecutor dismissed — Appeal by accused dismissed — Conviction and sentence affirmed. 1 Rayuan Jenayah – Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman – Kesalahan amang seksual fizikal terhadap kanak-kanak – Seksyen14(b) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 – Dapatan Hakim Sesyen berkenaan elemen pembuktian: mangsa seorang kanak-kanak, saksi kredibel, oleh dipercayai dan keterangan konsisten – Ketidaktepatan kecil dan percanggahan keterangan berkenaan fakta yang tidak material adalah tidak fatal – HMS terkhilaf dalam menggunapakai pengalaman peribadinya untuk dikaitkan dengan kelonggaran pergerakan semasa Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan namun ia tidak menjejaskan dapatan HMS secara keseluruhannya – Rayuan ditolak, sabitan kekal - Hukuman HMS kekal, pertimbangan kepada kepentingan awam kerana umur mangsa terlalu muda sewaktu kejadian. 1 Rayuan Jenayah – Seksyen 420 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama s.34 – Menipu/niat bersama – Ketiadaan alasan penghakiman HMS – Rayuan jenayah lebih sesuai menurut Bab XXX Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan bukan Semakan Jenayah di bawah Bab XXXI Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – ketiadaan alasan penghakiman membenarkan pemakaian peruntukan seksyen 310 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah walaupun tidak mematuhi kehendak subseksyen 307(3), (4, (5) dan (6) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – Pembuktian intipati di bawah Seksyen 420 Kanun Keseksaan dan elemen niat bersama – Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan tanpa keraguan munasabah - Keputusan Hakim Sesyen dikekalkan, rayuan ditolak. 1 Rayuan Silang – Perayu merayu terhadap sabitan dan hkukuman manakala responden merayu terhadap hukuman dijatuhkan HMS -Seksyen 420 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama s.34 – Menipu/niat bersama – Ketiadaan alasan penghakiman HMS – Rayuan jenayah lebih sesuai menurut Bab XXX Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan bukan Semakan Jenayah di bawah Bab XXXI Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – ketiadaan alasan penghakiman membenarkan pemakaian peruntukan seksyen 310 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah walaupun tidak mematuhi kehendak subseksyen 307(3), (4, (5) dan (6) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – Pembuktian intipati di bawah Seksyen 420 Kanun Keseksaan dan elemen niat bersama – Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan tanpa keraguan munasabah - Keputusan : Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman ditolak - Keputusan HMS dikekalkan, rayuan ditolak. 1 Rasuah — Pegawai kerajaan — Menerima suapan wang tunai sebagai dorongan untuk mempengaruhi Timbalan Pendakwa Raya sebagai sebahagian daripada pengaturan untuk pengurangan pertuduhan — elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan, pemakaian anggapan menurut subseksyen 50(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009, ss 17(a), 24, 50(1); Akta Keterangan 1950, ss 55, 114. Kanun Tatacara Jenayah — Pertuduhan — Pindaan pertuduhan sebanyak tiga kali, keperluan mematuhi peruntukan di bawah ss 159 –162 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah — Sama memematuhi keperluan mandatori — Sama ada wujud prejudis kepada tertuduh — Ketiadaan alasan penghakiman hakim bicara — Sama ada rayuan boleh diteruskan — Prinsip bahawa ketiadaan alasan tidak menjadikan sabitan terbatal — ss 307, 310, 316, 323, 325 — Rayuan sabitan dan hukuman ditolak. 1 Criminal law — Corruption — Public servant — Acceptance of gratification — Two charges — s. 17(a) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 — Presumption under s. 50 — Elements of offence Criminal procedure — Absence of grounds of judgment — Whether appeal or criminal revision — Powers of High Court — ss. 310, 316, 323, 325 Criminal Procedure Code — Appeal heard substantively Evidence — Duty of prosecution — Failure to call material witness — Whether fatal to prosecution’s case — No adverse inference under s. 114(g) Evidence Act — Acquittal warranted where essential elements not proved Appeal — Conviction — First charge unsafe — Acquittal — Second charge proved beyond reasonable doubt — Acceptance of marked money — Trap operation — Presumption unrebutted Appellate review — Findings of fact — Trial court misdirection on first charge — No error on second charge — Appellate restraint Outcome – Appeal by accused allowed in part — Conviction on first charge set aside and accused acquitted — Appeal on second charge dismissed — Conviction and sentence on second charge affirmed. 1 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah — Ketiadaan alasan penghakiman Hakim Sesyen — Sama ada rayuan perlu diteruskan sebagai rayuan atau semakan jenayah — Bab XXX & XXXI Kanun Prosedur Jenayah — Diteruskan secara rayuan, bukan semakan jenayah — S. 310 terpakai, boleh memfailkan Petisyen Rayuan walaupun tidak mematuhi kehendak s. 307(3), (4, (5) dan (6) — s. 307(9) tidak terpakai — Pemfailan Petisyen Rayuan di luar tempoh masa dibenarkan — Tiada prejudis atau ketidakadilan timbul. Undang-undang jenayah — Rasuah — s. 17(a) Akta SPRM 2009 — Sama ada suapan diperoleh sebagai dorongan untuk tidak melakukan sesuatu — Elemen tidak dibuktikan — Sabitan tidak selamat — Pembuktian elemen penerimaan benda berharga tanpa balasan oleh penjawat awam — Sabitan di bawah s. 165 Kanun Keseksaan. Keputusan — Rayuan dibenarkan sebahagian — Sabitan dan hukuman di bawah s. 17(a) ASPRM dibatalkan — Perayu disabitkan di bawah s. 165 Kanun Keseksaan — Prinsip hukuman — Kepentingan awam — Keseriusan kesalahan — Trend hukuman — Hukuman penjara 1 bulan dikenakan 1 Criminal law — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Possession and trafficking — ss. 12(2), 12(3), 39A(1), 39A(2), 39B — Plea bargaining — Reduction of capital charge — Accused pleaded guilty to substituted charge Criminal procedure — Guilty plea — s. 178 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether plea voluntary, informed and unequivocal — Court satisfied statutory safeguards complied with Sentencing — Principles — Proportionality — Deterrence — Public interest — Weight and type of drugs — Guilty plea as mitigating factor — Limits in drug offences Sentencing — Caning — Statutory exemption — Accused above 50 years — s. 289 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether imprisonment may be enhanced in lieu of caning — Comparative reference to Singapore jurisprudence — Discretion of court Sentencing — Enhancement of custodial sentence — Loss of deterrent and retributive effect of caning — Seriousness of offence — No compelling mitigating circumstances — Imprisonment of 11 years appropriate and not manifestly excessive Outcome – Conviction recorded on guilty plea — Sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment (from date of arrest). 1 Jenayah Narkotik — Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 — Pembuktian milikan berdasarkan keterangan terus bukan menggunapakai andaian menurut s. 37 (d) ADB dan s. 37 (da) ADB — Sama ada anggapan di bawah s 37(da) boleh diguna tanpa dapatan milikan secara afirmatif - Pihak Pendakwaan perlu membuktikan elemen milikan dan pengetahuan tanpa apa-apa keraguan munasabah sebelum boleh menggunapakai anggapan mengedar di bawah s.37(da)(iiia) ADB.Keterangan — Kawalan berterusan terhadap kenderaan — Kewujudan cap jari pihak ketiga — Sama ada wujud dapatan positif milikan secara eksklusif (express affirmative finding) — Muhammad Hassan v PP [1998] 2 CLJ 170; Alma Nudo Atenza v PP [2019] 5 CLJ 780; PP v Lingeswaran [2018] 10 MLJ 158 Prinsip penghukuman — Pengakuan salah selepas kes Pendakwaan ditutup — Kepentingan awam, keseriusan kesalahan, berat dan jenis dadah — Hukuman penjara serentak dan sebatan. 1 Criminal law — Penal Code — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — s. 304(a) — Original charge under s. 302 reduced upon representation — Substituted charge — Accused pleaded guilty Criminal procedure — Guilty plea — s. 178 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether plea voluntary, informed and unequivocal — Statutory requirements satisfied — Conviction properly recorded 1 Sentencing — Principles — Proportionality — Public interest — Deterrence and retribution — Loss of life as irreversible harm — Comparative sentencing trends for s. 304(a) offences 1 Sentencing — Mitigating factors — Early guilty plea — Remorseful — Absence of weapon — Personal circumstances — Not a hardened criminal 1 Sentencing — Discretion of court — No misdirection — Sentence of eight years’ imprisonment from date of arrest neither manifestly excessive nor manifestly inadequate 1 Appeal — Prosecution’s appeal against sentence — Appellate restraint — No basis for interference 1 Outcome – Prosecution’s appeal dismissed — Sentence of eight years’ imprisonment (from date of arrest). 1 Undang-undang jenayah — Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 — Penyeludupan migran — Kesalahan menangkut lima migran yang diseludup — Seksyen 26J — Pengakuan salah oleh tertuduh Prosedur jenayah — Pengakuan salah — Pematuhan s. 178 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah — Tertuduh dimaklumkan sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah sebelum pengakuan diterima dan sabitan direkodkan. Hukuman — Prinsip hukuman — Kesepadanan kesalahan — Pencegahan — Kepentingan awam — Keseriusan kesalahan — Pertimbangan keselamatan negara — Faktor mitigasi — Pesalah pertama — Pengakuan salah awal — Kerjasama dengan pihak polis — Usia muda — Latar belakang sosioekonomi — Penjimatan masa dan kos mahkamah — Perbandingan trend hukuman bagi kesalahan sama — Perbezaan hukuman melibatkan hukuman selepas perbicaraan penuh dan hukuman atas pengakuan salah Keputusan — Hukuman penjara 14 bulan dari tarikh tangkap. 1 Criminal law — Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 — s. 3A — Accomplice liability — Knowledge and participation — Failure of proof 1 Criminal procedure — Close of prosecution case — s. 180 Criminal Procedure Code — No prima facie case — Discharge without defence 1 Evidence — Identification parade — Compliance with police standing orders — Parade regular but identification inconsistent — No corroboration 1 Evidence — Firearm handling — Break in evidential chain — Prosecution failed to prove how weapon passed from accused to principal offender 1 Judicial duty — Court not entitled to speculate — Gaps in prosecution evidence fatal at prosecution stage 1 Outcome – Accused discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence 1 Criminal law — Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 — s. 3A — Accomplice liability — Knowledge and participation — Failure of proof Criminal procedure — Close of prosecution case — s. 180 Criminal Procedure Code — No prima facie case — Discharge without defence Evidence — Identification parade — Compliance with police standing orders — Parade regular but identification inconsistent — No corroboration Evidence — Firearm handling — Break in evidential chain — Prosecution failed to prove how weapon passed from accused to principal offender Judicial duty — Court not entitled to speculate — Gaps in prosecution evidence fatal at prosecution stage Outcome – Accused discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan pembatalan writ saman dan pliding yang ditolak oleh Mahkamah Sesyen - Seksyen 28 (1)(c) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 terpakai - Perintah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tidak sah disebabkan sebelum keputusan di bawah Aturan 18 kaedah 19 KKM 2012 Plaintif telah menarik tindakan - Mahkamah menggunakan bidang kuasa semakan di bawah seksyen 33 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 - Perintah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen diketepikan. 1 Rayuan sivil - Tuntutan Kemalangan jalanraya - Rayuan silang oleh Responden - Rayuan terhadap kuantum sahaja - Tiada asas untuk mahkamah campur tangan - Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan - Rayuan dan rayuan silang ditolak. 1 Rayuan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen - Pencerobohan tanah - Rayuan terhadap gantirugi sahaja - Tiada alasan penghakiman disediakan - Adakah gantirugi dibuktikan - Gantirugi nominal dibenarkan dengan kos. 1 Rayuan tuntutan kemalangan jalan raya terhadap liabiliti dan kuantum - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memutuskan 100 % liabiliti kepada Plaintif - Kuantum gantirugi ditaksirkan - Alasan penghakiman tiada asas dapatan - Liabiliti dipinda kepada 50 % kepada Plaintif - 50 % kepada Defendan - Kuantum dikekalkan atas dasar 50:50 liabiliti. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menolak permohonan pindaan penghakiman persetujuan - Tiada kekhilafan tergolong di dalam rukun kekhilafan (slip rules) - Rayuan ditolak. 1 Rujukan tanah - Pengambilan tanah bawah tanah - Seksyen 92A hingga 92I KTN dan Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 - Pampasan nominal - Tiada endorsan pada suratan hakmilik berkenaan harta tanah bawah tanah - Kemudaratan ditambah pampasan berdasarkan kesan pengambilan tanah kepada pemilik tanah. 1 Rujukan tanah - Nilai pampasan pecah pisah dan kesan kemudaratan - Pecah pisah diberikan pampasan RM82,072.60 - Kesan kemudaratan tiada pampasan diberikan - Perintah-perintah lain Pentadbir Tanah dikekalkan. 1 Rujukan Tanah - Pengambilan tanah untuk Projek ECRL - Saksi-saksi diperiksa semasa pendengaran Rujukan Tanah - Tuntutan pampasan untuk tanah di bawah tanah dan kesan mudarat - Pampasan nominal RM1,000.00 dikekalkan - Kesan mudarat ditolak disebabkan tidak dapat dibuktikan. 1 Tuntutan sivil - Perbicaraan penuh - Defendan telah gagal menjalankan tanggungjawab statutori - Pengambilan tanah pada 1952 tidak dimuktamadkan - Plaintif gagal membuktikan tuntutan - Tuntutan ditolak dengan kos. 1 The Plaintiffs were directors and shareholders of Mentakab Star Mall Sdn Bhd (“MSMSB”) and personal guarantors of banking facilities granted by United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd (“UOB”). MSMSB defaulted, and receivers and managers were appointed pursuant to a debenture securing a commercial property known as Mentakab Star Mall (“the Mall”). After several failed attempts to dispose of the Mall, the receivers entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the 4th Defendant for RM33 million. 1 Contending that the sale price was grossly undervalued compared with earlier valuations, the Plaintiffs commenced proceedings seeking, inter alia, to restrain completion of the sale pending trial. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was initially granted. The receivers and the purchaser applied to set aside the injunction. 1 The Plaintiffs argued that there were serious issues to be tried regarding breach of duty by the receivers, that damages were inadequate, that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, and that they could provide an undertaking as to damages. 1 The Defendants contended that the receivers acted within their contractual powers, that the Plaintiffs lacked locus standi, that any loss was purely monetary, that the transaction was substantially completed, and that the Plaintiffs had failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including prior proceedings involving the same subject matter. 1 Held, dismissing the application for interim injunction and setting aside the ex-parte and ad-interim orders, with costs: 1 (1) The Plaintiffs failed to establish any bona fide serious issue to be tried. Clause 11.4.4 of the debenture conferred absolute discretion on the receivers to deal with and dispose of the charged asset. The evidence showed multiple prior unsuccessful sale attempts and that the RM33 million price reflected the highest offer available and aligned with a contemporaneous valuation. 1 (2) The Plaintiffs’ alleged loss was purely financial and quantifiable. The Statement of Claim itself pleaded damages based on the alleged difference between market value and sale price, amounting to an admission that damages were an adequate remedy. Accordingly, the second limb of the American Cyanamid test was not satisfied. 1 (3) The balance of convenience favoured the Defendants. The SPA had been completed, substantial consideration paid, possession delivered, and commercial and financing arrangements put in place. Granting an injunction would disrupt a concluded commercial transaction and cause significant prejudice to an innocent purchaser, whereas the Plaintiffs’ prejudice was limited to a monetary claim. 1 (4) The Plaintiffs’ undertaking as to damages was insufficient and unenforceable. Given their substantial indebtedness and the encumbered value of the assets offered as security, the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the means to honour their undertaking, especially in light of the potentially extensive losses to the Defendants if restrained. 1 (5) The Plaintiffs breached their duty of full and frank disclosure under Order 29 r 1(2A) of the Rules of Court 2012 by failing to disclose prior litigation concerning the same property and allegations against the receiver. Such material non-disclosure was of itself fatal and justified setting aside the ex-parte and ad-interim injunctions. 1 Bicara penuh - Tuntutan pemecahan terma kontrak pembinaan dan tuntutan balas Defendan Pertama - Tiada perjanjian bertulis - Plaintif tidak dapat membuktikan tuntutan pada tahap perimbangan kebarangkalian - Tuntutan balas tidak dapat dibuktikan - Tuntutan Plaintif ditolak - Tuntutan balas Defendan Pertama ditolak. 1 Tuntutan perlanggaran terma kontrak pembekalan bijih besi dalam kualiti tertentu - Perbicaraan penuh - Tuntutan ditolak. 1 Permohonan injunksi interlokutori - Plaintif dan Defendan menanandatangi perjanjian pengambilalihan eksklusif - Permohonan dibenarkan dengan kos. 1 Permohonan untuk pengguguran peguam Defendan daripada mewakili Defendan - Plaintif-plaintif tidak dapat menunjukkan keadaan dan melepasi ujian bendul untuk pengguguran peguam - Permohonan ditolak. 1 Perbicaraan penuh tuntutan fitnah - Pernyataan di dalam minit mesyuarat yang ditampalkan di papan kenyataan - Tuntutan dibenarkan - Gantirugi RM150,000.00 dan kos RM30,000.00 dan perintah-perintah lanjutan yang bersesuaian. 1 Permohonan pengecualian merujuk kepada badan pendamai - Seksyen 106 Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 - Permohonan ditolak. 1 Permohonan perintah jualan harta tanah di bawah seksyen 256 Kanun Tanah Negara - Plaintif merupakan pemegang lien - Defendan telah membuat pinjaman peribadi - Kaveat pemegang lien telah didaftarkan oleh Plaintif - Penghakiman mahkamah telah diperolehi setelah Defendan ingkar membayar pinjaman - Tiada kausa bertentangan ditunjukkan di bawah seksyen 256 (3) Kanun Kanun Negara - Perintah jualan dibenarkan. 1 Permohonan kebenaran untuk memulakan tindakan terbitan (derivative action) di bawah seksyen 348 Akta Syarikat 2016 - Permohonan ditolak. 1 The dispute in this case concerned the recovery of vacant possession of two parcels of land together with a factory building situated thereon, held under GM 835 Lot 7628 and GM 815 Lot 7629, Mukim Gali, Ulu Gali, Daerah Raub, Pahang (“the said lands”). 1 The Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the said lands, while the Defendant was a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading durians and other fruits. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings by way of Originating Summons under O. 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, alleging that the Defendant had entered into and remained in occupation of the said lands without licence or consent. 1 The Plaintiff contended that no tenancy or lease agreement had ever been entered into with the Defendant, that no rent had ever been paid, and that the Defendant was therefore a trespasser ‘pure and simple’. The Plaintiff relied on the land titles, a sale and purchase agreement, a police report denying the authenticity of an alleged lease, and a letter from one of the Defendant’s directors confirming that no tenancy agreement had been approved or entered into. The Defendant, on the other hand, asserted that it occupied the said lands pursuant to a valid lease agreement and argued that the authenticity and enforceability of the lease raised triable issues unsuitable for summary determination under O.89 of the ROC 2012. 1 The issues for this Court’s determination were: a) whether the Plaintiff had established a right to possession of the said lands sufficient to invoke the summary procedure under O. 89; and 1 b) whether the Defendant had raised any bona fide triable issue of fact or law, in particular as to the existence of lawful tenancy or license, so as to oust the operation of O.89. 1 Held, allowing the Plaintiff’s application with cost of RM 5,000.00. 1 1) The Plaintiff had established his proprietary right to possession and satisfied the substantive requirements of O.89. The Plaintiff’s ownership of the said lands was undisputed, and affidavit evidence showed that the Defendant was in occupation without licence or consent. In the absence of any proven tenancy or lawful basis of occupation, the case fell squarely within the narrow ambit of O.89 which is confined to clear cases of the trespass (see Chiu Wing Wa & Ors v. Ong Beng Cheng and Shaheen Abu Bakar v. Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor). 1 2) The Defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue capable of defeating the summary procedure. The alleged lease agreement relied upon by the Defendant was riddled with material deficiencies, including the absence of a date, the absence of commencement or expiry terms, lack of witnesses, disputed signatures and the complete absence of proof of rental payment. These defects taken cumulatively, rendered the Defendant’s assertion as lawful occupation no more than a bare allegation. 1 3) The Defendant’s own documentary evidence fatally undermined its case. A letter from a director and 50% shareholder of the Defendant expressly confirmed that no tenancy agreement had been entered into with the Plaintiff and that any purported agreement was not approved by the board and might involve elements of forgery. This admission decisively corroborated the Plaintiff’s denial of any lease and extinguished any suggestion that a triable issue existed. 1 4) This was not a case requiring viva voce evidence or a full trial. The dispute turned on straightforward issues of ownership and unlawful occupation, which were capable of being justly determined on affidavit evidence. To deny summary relief would unjustly deprive the Plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of his property and defeat the very purpose of O.89. 1 Permohonan Plaintif untuk Pentadbir Tanah membetulkan catatan di dalam suratan hakmilik - Permohonan ditolak. 1 Petisyen penggulungan syarikat - Affidavit membantah petisyen tidak bertarikh - Adakah affidavit cacat - Adakah affidavit tersebut boleh digunakan - Aturan 41 kaedah 9 KKM 2012 - Kaedah 30 Kaedah-kaedah (Penggulungan) Syarikat 1972 - Akta Syarikat 2016 - Aturan 1A KKM 2012 - Adakah Responden tidak mempunyai keupayaan untuk melunaskan hutang - Petisyen penggulungan dibenarkan. 1 Permohonan penangguhan pelaksanaan writ penyitaan dan penjualan berdasarkan kepada perintah kos oleh mahkamah - Mahkamah mendapati terdapat keadaan istimewa - Permohonan dibenarkan dengan kos. 1 Rayuan jenayah terhadap keputusan Majistret menjatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan 5 tahun dari tarikh tangkap - Perayu mempunyai 8 rekod kesalahan lalu di bawah seksyen 457 KK - Rayuan ditolak - Hukuman disahkan. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Majistret melepas dan membebaskan Responden tanpa dipanggil membela diri - Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 509 Kanun Keseksaan - Keputusan Majistret disahkan - Rayuan Pendakwa Raya ditolak. 1 Rayuan jenayah - Hukuman bagi pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) ADB 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39C ADB 1952 - Rayuan dibenarkan - Hukuman digantikan kepada enam tahun penjara, satu sebatan dan dua tahun pengawasan polis. 1 Rayuan hukuman oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen untuk tiga pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12(2)/39A(2), 12(2)/39A(1) dan 12(2) ADB 1952 - Hukuman disahkan - Rayuan ditolak. 1 Rayuan jenayah - Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 15 (2)/39CADB 1952 - Pengakuan salah - OKT dijatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan 6 tahun dan pengawasan AADK 2 tahun - Prinsip penghukuman dipatuhi oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen - Rayuan ditolak - Hukuman disahkan. 1 Rayuan jenayah terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen membebas dan melepaskan Perayu di akhir kes pembelaan di bawah seksyen 14 (a) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 - Tiada alasan penghakiman disediakan oleh hakim bicara semenjak 02.02.2023 - Mahkamah gunakan kuasa semakan - Dapatan dan perintah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan. 1 Rayuan jenayah - Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 375 Kanun Keseksaan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 376 Kanun Keseksaan - Keterangan pengadu menjelaskan kejadian secara terperinci - Perayu dapat dicamkan - Bersama-sama Perayu dalam tempoh yang lama - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah teliti keterangan dengan sewajarnya - Tiada alasan ganggu dapatan - Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan. 1 Rayuan jenayah - Pertuduhan di bawah Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 - Sabitan dan hukuman diketepikan. 1 Rayuan jenayah - Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang mensabitkan Perayu di bawah seksyen 375/376 KK - Hukuman penjara 12 tahun dan 6 sebatan - Pengecaman dibuat oleh saksi 10 tahun selepas kejadian - DNA bulu Perayu ditemui di tempat kejadian - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memutuskan keterangan SP1 luar biasa menyakinkan (unusually convincing) - Sabitan dan hukuman tidak selamat - Rayuan dibenarkan. 1 Rayuan jenayah - Responden dibebas dan dilepaskan bagi pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 15(1)/39C ADB 1952 - Hakim bicara membuat perbandingan tandatangan - Rayuan ditolak - Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen melepas dan membebaskan Responden disahkan. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39A(1) , 12 (2) ABD 1952 dan seksyen 30 (3) Akta Racun - Pendakwa Raya tidak berjaya menunjukkan satu kes prima facie - OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 OKT1 dituduh di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 - Pihak pendakwaan gagal menunjukkan kes prima facie - OKT1 dibebas dan dilepaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 - Pendakwa Raya gagal menunjukkan satu kes prima facie terhadap OKT 1 dan OKT 2 - OKT 1 dan OKT 2 dibebaskan dan dilepaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 OKT1 dan OKT2 dituduh di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 - Pihak pendakwaan gagal menunjukkan kes prima facie - OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebas dan dilepaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 - Pendakwa Raya tidak berjaya menunjukkan kes prima facie - OKT1 hingga OKT5 dibebas dan dilepaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - OKT dituduh di bawah seksyen 39B, 12(2), 39A(1) dan 39A(2) ADB 1952 - OKT dibebaskan dan dilepaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri bagi dadah yang ditemui di 2 premis - OKT dipanggil membela diri untuk pertuduhan dadah yang ditemui di stesen minyak. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 - Mahkamah berpendapat Pendakwa Raya gagal menunjukkan kes prima facie terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2 - OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebaskan dari pertuduhan - OKT3 dipanggil membela diri. 1 3 orang dituduh mengedar dadah - Dadah dijumpai dalam kereta OKT1 ditahan di tempat kejadian - OKT 2 dan OKT3 ditahan di Selangor - OKT2 dan OKT3 dilepaskan dan dibebaskan - OKT1 disabitkan dan dihukum penjara 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 12 kali sebatan. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 - Pendakwa Raya tidak berjaya menunjukkan satu kes prima facie - OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - OKT 1 dan OKT 2 disabitkan dengan pertuduhan - OKT 1 & OKT 2 dihukum penjara 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkap. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952. Pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah - Pertimbangan sama ada hukuman mati atau pemenjaraan - Tertuduh disabit dengan pertuduhan - Hukuman penjara 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 12 sebatan. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Dua pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 dan satu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12 (1) Akta yang sama yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(1) ADB 1952 - Pendakwa Raya telah berjaya menunjukkan kes prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan - OKT berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah di akhir kes pembelaan - Pendakwa Raya gagal membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah - OKT dibebas dan dilepaskan dari kesemua pertuduhan. 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - OKT 1 dan OKT 2 berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah - OKT 1 dan OKT 2 dibebas dan dilepaskan 1 Perbicaraan jenayah - OKT dituduh melakukan kesalahan bunuh - OKT dipanggil membela diri dan mengemukakan pengecualian di bawah seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan - Mahkamah berpuas hati OKT berjaya membuktikan pengecualian di bawah seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan - Perintah di bawah seksyen 347 KPJ. 1 Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Pendakwa Raya gagal membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah - OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan. 1 Compliance of requisites and statutory procedures under section 53 of the Electricity Act 1949 (now section 11 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990) to obtain and maintain wayleave. 1 seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan – Isu: sama ada Hakim telah terkhilaf apabila menolak pembelaan ketidakwarasan (defence of insanity)? - Seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan - Act of a person of unsound mind - perbezaan legal and medical insanity - legal insanity merupakan bidang kuasa mahkamah - peban pembuktian ketidakwarasaan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian terletak di bahu tertuduh - disebabkan ketidakwarasaan fikiran, tertuduh tidak berkeupayaan mengetahui bahawa perbuatannya itu adalah salah atau berlawanan dengan undang-undang pada ketika kesalahan itu dilakukan - isu ketidakwarasaan undang-undang (legal insanity) perlu diputuskan tanpa mengenepikan keterangan perubatan (medical evidence) - kelakuan tertuduh terdahulu dan terkemudian menunjukkan “state of mind” – tertuduh mengalami masalah kebergantungan kepada dadah dan psikosis - luka-luka tembak telah mengakibatkan 100% kematian - tembakan dilakukan dengan niat untuk menyebabkan kematian - sasaran tertuduh hanyalah terhadap si mati sahaja - keadaan mental tertuduh sebelum, semasa dan selepas kejadian - Tertuduh telah gagal dalam pembelaan tidak waras (insanity) - seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - inferens tertuduh sedar sifat serta akibat perbuatannya, mampu mengetahui bahawa perbuatannya adalah salah dan bertentangan dengan undang-undang ketika melakukan kesalahan tersebut - keterangan melimpah ruah menunjukan niat, tahap mental serta pemikiran tertuduh yang boleh berfikir secara rasional - pengakuan sukarela tertuduh membunuh si mati dengan sendirinya telah melenyapkan isu mengenai ketiadaan motif pembunuhan - pembelaan mengenai ketidakwarasan mental adalah suatu yang tidak berasas serta tidak menimbulkan apa-apa keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 – tiada ‘suppression of material evidence 1 Assessment of damages in personal injury claim - treating Doctors were not called - whether evidence by treating Doctors is compulsory to prove damages. 1 Civil procedure - third party notice - filing of leave to issue third party notice during the trial - inordinate and unexplained delay 1 Motor accident – emergency vehicle – obligation to give way to emergency vehicles on official duty – Road Transport Rules and Highway Code 1 Damages – Future nursing care – plaintiff is immobile but does not need full time 24 hours nursing care – whether plaintiff can make a claim for full time nursing care when expert testified that full time nursing care is optional – whether the deceased’s income needs to be proven in dependency claim. 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS berkenaan kuantum gantirugi kecederaan akibat kemalangan jalanraya; 1 Perayu telah gagal membuktikan kekhilafan atau salah pertimbangan HMS dalam memutuskan kuantum gantirugi; 1 HMS telahpun membuat dapatan setelah mempertimbangkan dan membuat analisis ke atas setiap kecederaan dan membuat award kuantum atas prinsip undang-undang dan trend award semasa; 1 Rayuan Plaintif mengenai kuantum adalah ditolak. 1 Tenancy agreement entered into by agent of the registered proprietor - oral extension - oral agreement by the principal to waive rental - whether subsequent oral agreement with the principal supersede the oral agreement with the agent - estoppel by conduct 1 KEMALANGAN JALANRAYA: Rayuan berkenaan kuantum - Mahkamah ini juga telah memutuskan untuk menolak 1/3 daripada keseluruhan kos alat orthosis tersebut kerana mengambil kira faktor-faktor luar jangka serta berpendapat bahawa, plaintif pertama tidak akan memakai alat tersebut lagi selepas dia berumur 60 tahun lebih menurut jangka hayatnya. 1 Appeal on damages - loss of earning - whether cost of living needs to be deducted - loss of future earing - duty to mitigate losses - whether loss of future earnings can be awarded if the Plaintiff's condition has improved 1 Contract – void contract – illegality of the object of the contract – chassis number of vehicle tempered with – vehicle seized by JPJ – whether contract of sale is void – whether purchaser is entitled for a refund of purchase price – whether banks ought to verify its ownership and the right to sell the vehicle prior to selling the vehicle 1 Tort – negligence – vehicle chassis number tempered with – what is the standard of reasonable care of PUSPAKOM in inspecting the car – whether PUSPAKOM ought to carry out tests beyond visual inspection. 1 RAYUAN SIVIL: tuntutan kemalangan jalan raya di mana HMS yang bijaksana telah menolak tuntutan perayu/plaintif dan telah membenarkan tuntutan balas defendan/responden. 1 RAYUAN SIVIL: Rayuan perayu (defendan) terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS)berkenaan liabiliti dan kuantum bagi satu tuntutan gantirugi kemalangan jalan raya - Mahkamah ini telah menolak rayuan defendan dengan kos dan mengekalkan keputusan HMS 1 KEMALANGAN JALAN RAYA: Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan sebahagian rayuan plaintif iaitu hanya terhadap defendan pertama sahaja di mana defendan pertama didapati bertanggungan 100% dalam kemalangan tersebut manakala keputusan HMS yang bijaksana yang menolak tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan kedua dan ketiga adalah dikekalkan 1 RAYUAN SIVIL : Rayuan kuantum bagi satu tuntutan gantirugi kemalangan jalan raya - Isu gantirugi kehilangan pendapatan dan kehilangan pendapatan masa depan. 1 RAYUAN SIVIL: Liabiliti dan kuantum bagi satu tuntutan gantirugi kemalangan jalan raya - satu pendekatan yang salah untuk menetapkan pembahagian liabiliti 50:50 atau 60:40 atau apa-apa kadar nisbah tanggungan yang lain kepada pihak-pihak tanpa dapat dibuktikan pihak mana yang bertanggungan - 2 versi kejadian yang bertentangan sebagaimana yang berlaku dalam kes ini, adalah penting untuk Mahkamah meneliti dan mendapatkan panduan serta petunjuk daripada bukti senyap - Mahkamah ini mengenepikan keputusan HMS yang bijaksana yang menetapkan liabiliti plaintif-plaintif sebanyak 60% dan defendan sebanyak 40%. 1 Civil Procedure — Appeal — Record of appeal — Memorandum of appeal — Failure to file record of appeal within the prescribed time — Omission of memorandum of appeal — No application for extension of time — Whether the appeal is incompetent — Order 55 r 4, Rules of Court 2012 — Whether Order 1A may be invoked — Mandatory procedural compliance — Appeal struck out. 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS dalam suatu tuntutan gantirugi kemalangan jalanraya yang memutuskan liabiliti Plaintif 25% dan liabiliti Defendan 75% - Tuntutan indemniti oleh Defendan ke atas Pihak Ketiga dibenarkan 25% masing-masing; 1 Kausa tindakan Plaintif berbangkit daripada dakwaan kecuaian Defendan dalam menyelenggara jalan yang menyebabkan Plaintif telah terjatuh dalam lubang atas jalanraya tersebut; 1 Pihak Ketiga 1 adalah syarikat konsesi yang menyelenggara jalan- Pihak Ketiga 2 pula hanyalah kontraktor yang dilantik Kerajaan untuk Projek Hospital Bachok; 1 Mahkamah ini dapati Pihak Ketiga 2 tidak bertanggungan ke atas indemniti kepada Defendan kerana kegagalan membuktikan lubang tersebut dalam kawasan kerja Pihak Ketiga 2. 1 Whether the finding of facts made by the trial judge is plainly wrong – Two different versions of events regarding the point of impact – The ‘plainly wrong’ test – insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence causing the findings to be plainly wrong – whether any weight should be attached to the evidence of investigation officer in accident cases 1 Tort — Negligence — Road traffic accident — Road maintenance contractor — Plastic cone on road shoulder — Whether contractor negligent — Burden of proof — Balance of probabilities — Evidence Act 1950, s 101 Evidence — Evaluation — Conflicting versions — Police reports lodged belatedly — Police reports lodged on same date using similar language — Whether reports orchestrated by third party — Credibility and probative value — Investigating officer’s conclusion based on presumption — Hearsay evidence — Medical records Appeal — Findings of fact — Trial judge’s failure to judicially appreciate evidence — Undue reliance on police reports — Whether findings plainly wrong — Appellate intervention— “Plainly wrong” test 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS yang membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif (KWSP) berkenaan jumlah jumlah caruman, dividen dan faedah yang perlu dibayar; 1 Rayuan ini oleh Defendan 6 sahaja atas kapasiti sebagai salah seorang pemegang jawatan bagi Persatuan Bolesepak Kelantan (majikan); 1 Defendan 6 selaku salah seorang pemegang jawatan adalah bersesama atau berasingan (mengikut tempoh pegangan jawatan) bertanggungan ke atas tanggungjawab majikan untuk membayar caruman, dividen dan faedah; 1 Rayuan oleh Defendan 6 ditolak dan keputusan HMS adalah dikekalkan. 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS yang membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif; 1 Kausa tindakan merupakan tuntutan caruman KWSP ke atas Persatuan Bolasepak Kelantan dan pemegang jawatan Persatuan; 1 Pemegang jawatan bertanggungan bersesama dan berasingan untuk membayar caruman bagi tempoh pemegangan jawatannya; 1 Tidak timbul isu tuntutan berganda kerana masing-masing pemegang jawatan jointly and severally liable untuk membayar caruman pekerja . 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS yang menolak tuntutan plaintif dengan kos; 1 Tempat di mana kemalangan berlaku tidak dipertikaikan- isu berbangkit sama ada tempat kemalangan berlaku itu di atas jalan Persekutuan, jalan Negeri, jalan Perbandaran atau masih dalam tanggungan selenggaraan pemaju; 1 Dapatan HMS bahawa tempat kemalangan tersebut bukanlah atas jalan selenggaraan Persekutuan, Negeri atau Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan pada masa yang material kerana belum diserahkan oleh pemaju lagi; 1 Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa kekhilafan atau kesilapan HMS dalam membuat dapatan tersebut; 1 Kuantum gantirugi yang diaward oleh HMS (atas 100% liabiliti) juga adalah wajar dan munasabah berpandukan keterangan yang ada dan berpandukan Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards (Revised 2018); 1 Award gantirugi oleh HMS bukanlah terlalu rendah atau melampau (manifestly inadequate); 1 Rayuan atas liabiliti dan kuantum ditolak dengan kos. 1 defence of limitation is a complete defence - defendant entitled to apply to strike out on the grounds of frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of the court 1 Notice of Application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 Rule 19 (1) (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 -Whether The Plaintiffs have a cause of action against the Second Defendant - Time limitation and applicability of the provisions of Public Authority Protection Act 1948 to the Second Defendant. 1 GUAMAN SIVIL - Tuntutan bayaran perkhidmatan profesional plaintif sebagai perunding ukur bahan bagi suatu projek - Samada plaintif telah memberikan perkhidmatan di dalam tempoh perkhidmatan tambahan kepada defendan - Samada plaintif berhak terhadap jumlah gantirugi bagi perkhidmatan tambahan yang diberikan oleh plaintif kepada defendan dalam tempoh perkhidmatan tambahan bagi projek tersebut; dan - bagaimanakah pengiraan dan berapakah jumlah gantirugi yang perlu dibayar oleh defendan kepada plaintif. 1 Permohonan interlokutori bagi membatalkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan Plaintif menurut A.18 k.19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahakamah 2012; 1 Permohonan Defendan dibenarkan atas alasan tuntutan Plaintif tidak menunjukkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah, remeh dan menyusahkan kerana tidak memenuhi keperluan peruntukan seksyen 5 dan 6 Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956 dari segi menamakan tortfeasor; 1 Plaintif juga tidak mempunyai locus standi mewakili Si Mati kerana Perintah sebagai Pentadbir Pusaka Si Mati yang dikeluarkan di bawah A.15 k.6A KKM 2012; 1 Prinsip undang-undang 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' adalah terpakai. 1 Defendant's Notice of Application to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) - This Court has allowed the Defendant's application in this Encl. 10 and has struck out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim - Whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant are separate legal entity from DWCSB and DDB - Whether the Plaintiffs has Locus Standi to sue the Defendant personally in respect of the agreement and transaction entered into between the two corporate entities - Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is time barred pursuant to Limitation Act 1953. 1 Contract — Service contract — Safety obligations — failure to comply with with employer’s regulations — Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 — Non-delegable duty of contractor 1 Workplace safety — Fatal accident — Live line electrical works — Work carried out in rain and darkness — Failure to implement CSQA — Uncertified personnel — PPE deficiencies 1 Contractual powers — Suspension of works — Blacklisting from future tenders — Exercise of contractual rights — Risk-management measure 1 Private law — Commercial contract — Inapplicability of natural justice and judicial review principles 1 Pleadings — Parties bound by pleadings — Unpleaded issues — Requirement of specific pleading 1 Civil Procedure — Amendment of pleadings — Late amendment — After close of pleadings and completion of pre-trial case management — Trial dates fixed — Whether application bona fide — Whether cogent explanation for delay shown — Whether amendments introduce new causes of action — Whether amendments fundamentally alter character of action — Whether prejudice to defendants compensable by costs 1 Evidence / Civil Procedure — Allegation of forgery — Burden of proof — Onus probandi — Evidence Act 1950 s 101 — Proof of due execution — Common seal — Production of original document — Credibility and demeanour of witnesses — Bare denial. 1 Limitation of Actions — Limitation Act 1953 s 6(1)(a) — Accrual of cause of action in contracts involving Instalment payments— no default clause inserted into the contract - Separate causes of action — Time running from date instalment falls due — Claims partly statute-barred. 1 Acknowledgment / Part Payment — Acknowledgment of debt — Part-payment — Payment by third party — Whether payment referable to contractual debt — Effect on limitation. 1 Notis Permohonan oleh D2, D3 dan D4 untuk perintah membatalkan writ dan pernyataan tuntutan Plaintif di bawah A18 k 19 KKM 2012; 1 Permohonan untuk membatalkan tuntutan Plaintif dibenarkan atas alasan tindakan Plaintif ini tidak mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah, bersifat skandal, remeh atau menyusahkan, penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah serta tertakluk kepada prinsip res judicata; 1 Terdapat penghakiman Mahkamah Sesyen dalam tindakan terdahulu berkenaan jumlah wang yang dimasukkan ke dalam akaun Plaintif yang diputuskan sebagai unjust enrichment; 1 Rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan untuk mengekalkan Penghakiman Mahkamah Sesyen tersebut dan sekarang ini masih menunggu pelupusan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan; 1 Tindakan Plaintif mengemukakan writ dan tuntutan berkaitan dengan sabjek yang telah diputuskan terdahulu adalah terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata. 1 "Tuntutan penamatan kontrak - sama ada institusi masjid adalah satu badan berkeperibadian undang-undang - sama ada penamatan kontrak oleh Def adalah sah - sama ada Plf berhak dipampas" 1 Permohonan Defendan untuk mengubah perintah penjagaan anak menurut Seksyen 96 Akta Memperbaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 - Perintah Perlindungan Interim terhadap hak jagaan Plaintif kepada anak tersebut. 1 Permohonan bagi perintah membatalkan kaveat persendirian di bawah seksyen 327 KTN; 1 Defendan tidak mempunyai caveatable interest untuk memasukkan kaveat persendirian hanya berdasarkan surat wakil kuasa yang diberikan oleh Defendan kepadanya selepas tanah tersebut dilelong dan Plaintif merupakan pembida yang berjaya; 1 Plaintif merupakan aggrieved person yang mempunyai merit permohonan membatalkan kaveat persendirian tersebut. 1 SAMAN PEMULA: Samada tindakan untuk mempertahankan tanah pusaka oleh waris-waris memerlukan surat kuasa mentadbir - samada konsep pemegang amanah konstruktif adalah absolute dan selamanya - samada borang pindah milik secara escrow adalah satu pindah milik yang sah dan boleh didaftarkan - samada pembeli sucihati terdekat berhak mendapat perlindungan di bawah seksyen 340 KTN - syarat-syarat untuk pembeli menjadi pemilik beneficial setelah membayar keseluruhan harga jual beli. 1 - Civil procedeure - O24 r 7A ROC - pre-action discovery -purpose of pre-action discovery - to determine if plaintiff has a viable cause of actionf - Plaintiff is seeking pre-trial discovery to determine quantum of the claim -fishing expedition 1 removal of a private caveat - caveatable interest - defendant is the shareholder of the company - whether a shareholder has caveatable interest on assets of the company. 1 Seksyen 327(1) Kanun Tanah Negara, 1965: Kaveat Persendirian - permohonan pemohon-pemohon untuk memotong kaveat persendirian yang telah dimasuki oleh responden pertama ke atas tanah pemohon-pemohon - pihak yang memasukkan kaveat mestilah menunjukkan wujudnya kepentingan di dalam tanah tersebut - kepentingan tersebut haruslah menimbulkan suatu persoalan serius yang perlu dibicarakan - pihak yang memasukkan kaveat perlu menunjukkan, atas imbangan keselesaan (balance of convineince), adalah lebih baik untuk kekalkan status quo sehingga perbicaraan tindakan tersebut selesai. 1 Permohonan sivil bagi menamatkan ketuanpunyaan bersama dan pecah bahagian tanah di bawah seksyen 145 Kanun Tanah Negara; 1 Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa cadangan petak pecah bahagian yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif adalah lebih adil dan munasabah bagi maksud menamatkan ketuanpunyaan bersama tanah tersebut antara Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan. 1 SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN - Samada peruntukan dalam Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan & Tatatertib) 1993 serta Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam 1993 adalah mandatori - Adakah tanggungjawab responden untuk memastikan penyampaian surat secara pos berdaftar AR mesti diterima sendiri oleh pemohon. 1 Permohonan semakan kehakiman untuk writ certiorari; Permohonan bagi mengetepikan keputusan Jawatankuasa Perkhidmatan, Rayuan Kenaikan Pangkat Dan Rayuan Tatatertib, Majlis Daerah Bachok; Keputusan JK Perkhidmatan Bil 2 Tahun 2022 pada 14.6.2022 telah melanjutkan tempoh pengesahan tanpa denda bagi jawatan Pemohon selama setahun lagi daripada 16.1.2022 hingga 15.1.2023; Namun keputusan JK yang sama Bil 4 Tahun 2022 pada 15.8.2022 memutuskan bahawa 'pelanjutan tempoh percubaan Pemohon tidak dapat dipertimbangkan; Lagitimate expectation oleh Pemohon; Writ certiorari dibenarkan. 1 Petisyen penggulungan syarikat - pempetisyen terhadap responden atas alasan bahawa responden tidak mampu untuk membayar hutangnya kepada pempetisyen - Sama ada hutang yang menjadi asas petisyen adalah hutang yang dipertikaikan secara bona fide dan substantif - Sama ada petisyen ini merupakan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah - Sama ada responden masih solven dan mempunyai keupayaan kewangan untuk membayar hutang - Sama ada Notis 218 telah disampaikan secara sah kepada responden - Sama ada tindakan pempetisyen memfailkan petisyen ini adalah wajar dalam konteks undang-undang dan fakta. 1 Winding up — Stay of winding-up proceedings — Application for stay pending hearing of petition — Failure to satisfy judgment debt — Non-compliance with statutory demand under s 466 Companies Act 2016 — Presumption of inability to pay debts — Whether temporary cash-flow constraints amount to special circumstances — Whether continued operation and existence of assets negate commercial insolvency — Reliance on anticipated recovery from third party — Whether speculative future recovery constitutes special circumstances — Late filing of stay application — Abuse of process — Discretion of court 1 Application for leave under S.471 of Companies Act 2016 - the test for leave application under S.471 - whether merit of the proceedings is a relevant consideration at the leave stage 1 PENGGULUNGAN SYARIKAT: Seksyen 478 dan 482(b) Akta Syarikat, 2016 - Seksyen 471 Akta Syarikat 2016 dan Kaedah 7 Kaedah Kaedah (Penggulungan) Syarikat 1972 - Aturan 92 Kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 S.41(1) Akta Pengangkutan jalan 1987 - elemen-elemen kesalahan - maksud "cara pemanduan" - adalah memandu dengan mempunyai penyakit darah tinggi merupakan satu "cara pemanduan"merbahaya - mahkamah majistret tidak menjawab persoalan penting 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL: Whether it is mandatory for the court to call upon the owner of the vehicle to show cause before forfeiting the vehicle under proviso to section 74 (2) of the Animal Act. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama - perayu telah disabitkan ke atas kedua-dua pertuduhan tersebut dan dijatuhkan hukuman 18 bulan penjara bermula dari tarikh sabitan bagi setiap pertuduhan dengan kedua-dua hukuman berjalan serentak - Perayu telah merayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman tersebut ke hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu yang berkesudahan dengan rayuan dibenarkan yang mana sabitan dan hukuman ke atas kedua-dua pertuduhan telah diketepikan. 1 S. 39A(1) DDA – pemilikan dan kawalan keatas dadah - sama ada SP5 yang ditangkap Bersama perayu adalah sakan sejenayah (accomplice) ataupun saksi berkepentingan – sama ada majistret telah membuat penilaian maksima keatas keterangan semasa perbicaraan dan perlu menyatakannya secear spesifik di dalam alasan penghakiman. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Seksyen 15(1)(a) ADB 1950 - perayu telah dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri - Mahkamah Tinggi dapati tiada kekhilifan terhadap keputusan Majistret - Rayuan ditolak. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Perayu telah mengaku bersalah terhadap pertuduhan - hukuman pemenjaraan selama 5 tahun berkuatkuasa dari 09.02.2025 (tarikh Perayu dituduh) dengan satu sebatan dan perintah pengawasan selama 2 tahun berkuat kuasa setelah tamat tempoh hukuman - seksyen 282(d) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. 1 rayuan jenaya: hukuman pemenjaraan selama 7 tahun berkuatkuasa dari 25.04.2024 (tarikh Perayu dituduh) dan perintah pengawasan selama 2 tahun berkuat kuasa setelah tamat tempoh hukuman dan Perayu dikehendaki melapor diri di Balai Polis Kota Bharu pada atau sebelum 10 haribulan setiap bulan sehingga selesai. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan yang dibaca bersama Seksyen 397 Kanun yang sama - pertuduhan dibacakan buat kali pertama kepada Tertuduh/Perayu, Tertuduh/Perayu yang pada masa itu tidak diwakili oleh mana-mana peguambela telah membuat pengakuan bersalah - hukuman pemenjaraan selama 8 tahun berkuatkuasa pada 19.11.2024 dengan satu kali sebatan - Tertuduh/Perayu yang tidak berpuas hati dengan hukuman yang dijatuhkan terhadapnya tersebut telah merayu ke Mahkamah ini terhadap hukuman. 1 Rayuan jenayah terhadap keputusan HMS yang mensabitkan dan mengenahakan hukuman ke atas Perayu; 1 Rayuan ke atas hukuman sahaja; 1 Hanya satu isu dibangkitkan tentang tarikh mula hukuman pemenjaraan sama ada daripada tarikh Perayu dituduh atau ditangkap; 1 HMS telah menggunakan kuasa budibicara kehakimannya supaya hukuman bermula daripada tarikh dituduh; 1 Tiada kesilapan atau kekhilafan oleh HMS ; 1 Rayuan tidak bermerit dan ditolak. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH - Seksyen 376 (3) Kanun Keseksaan [Akta 574] - Seksyen 14 (d) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 [Akta 792] - Seksyen 282(d) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Seksyen 376 (1) Kanun Keseksaan - Di akhir kes pembelaan, perayu telah didapati bersalah dan telah disabitkan terhadap pertuduhan tersebut dan telah dijatuhi hukuman pemenjaraan selama 8 tahun - Walaupun tiada koyakan selaput dara atau hymen yang baru dan hanya ada koyakan lama, ia tidak bermaksud tiada penetrasi yang baru, kerana terdapat pelbagai faktor yang menjadikan keadaan sedemikian - Terdapat kesan DNA bercampur antara perayu dan mangsa pada toto yang menyokong bahawa perayu telah merogol mangsa. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Seksyen 376(B)(1) Kanun Keseksaan - hukuman pemenjaraan selama 15 tahun dari tarikh sabitan 30.04.2025 dan 3 sebatan - Kredibiliti mangsa (SP1) - Pembelaan alibi; dan Anggapan bertentangan menurut s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan. 1 Rayuan jenayah- rayuan TPR terhadap keputusan HMS yang memutuskan pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie dan oleh itu OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan; 1 Pertuduhan utama bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 409 dan pertuduhan pilihan di bawah seksyen 403 Kanun Keseksaan; 1 Responden/OKT didapati bukan lah Presiden Kelab DCC berdasarkan pendaftaran dalam e-ROSA dan tiada minit mesyuarat tahunan DCC didaftarkan dengan Pesuruhjaya Sukan tentang penukaran kepada Presiden yang baru; 1 Keterangan saksi pendakwaan sendiri iaitu SP6 menyatakan wang RM80,000 yang diberikan kepada Responden adalah sebagai bayaran balik perbelanjaan yang telah didahulukan oleh Responden bagi aktiviti DCC; 1 Pengemukaan skrin tangkap layar (screenshot) whatsapp daripada telefon tidak mecukupi bagi pembuktian keterangan primer (primary evidence) apabila telefen itu sendiri tidak dirampas atau dikemukakan bagi tujuan pengesahan kandungan Whatsapp tersebut. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH : Seksyen 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap perayu dan telah memanggil perayu untuk membela diri - perayu telah didapati bersalah dan telah disabitkan terhadap pertuduhan tersebut dan telah dijatuhi hukuman pemenjaraan selama 1 tahun dan denda sebanyak Ringgit Malaysia Sepuluh Ribu (RM10,000.00) - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Kegagalan pendakwa raya membuktikan elemen pertuduhan berkenaan kesalahan utama - Tujuan terima suapan yang bertentangan dengan undang-Hakim perbicaraan gagal mempertimbangkan keterangan pembelaan secara kehakiman dan menyeluruh - Rayuan dibenarkan. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Seksyen 376B Kanun Keseksaan - HMS jatuhkan hukuman penjara 18 tahun dan 10 sebatan - Mahkamah Tinggi kurang kan hukuman kepada 10 tahun penjara dan 5 sebatan. 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH: Seksyen 307 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun yang sama - perayu telah disabitkan atas pertuduhan tersebut dan dijatuhkan hukuman 14 tahun penjara - Perayu telah merayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman tersebut ke hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu yang berkesudahan dengan rayuan atas sabitan ditolak yang mana sabitan dikekalkan manakala hukuman telah dikurangkan kepada 10 tahun penjara. 1 Rayuan jenayah terhadap keputusan HMS yang mensabitkan Perayu-Perayu dan menjatuhkan hukuman 5 tahun pemenjaraan di bawah seksyen 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001; 1 Pertuduhan yang defektif kerana tidak mematuhi seksyen 153(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah berkenaan masa dan tempat berlakunya perbuatan (actus reus) kesalahan tersebut- tempoh masa September hingga November 2020 adalah terlalu luas dan umum untuk dakwaan kesalahan tersebut; 1 Kekhilafan dan kesilapan HMS kerana hanya bersandarkan kepada keterangan kes pembelaan semata-mata semasa pertimbangan dan membuat keputusan di akhir perbicaraan- gagal membuat penilaian maksimum (total evaluation) ke atas keterangan kes di peringkat pendakwaan dan keterangan di peringkat kes pembelaan sepertimana dikehendaki di bawah seksyen 182A(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah; 1 Rayuan atas sabitan dibenarkan dan keputusan HMS diketepikan dan diganti dengan perintah pelepasan ke atas Perayu-Perayu. 1 SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN: Pertuduhan di bawah s. 420 Kanun Keseksaan- Pemohon telah membuat akuan bersalah selepas pertuduhan dibacakan - hukuman pemenjaraan selama 12 bulan dan 1 sebatan ringan - Pemohon diwakili oleh seorang peguam daripada Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan - Majistret telah memberi ingatan kepada pemohon bahawa dalam kes tersebut, hukuman pemenjaraan adalah wajib dan tidak boleh didenda serta hukuman rotan sekurang-kurangnya 1 kali iaitu rotan ringan - hujah peguam pemohon adalah akuan bersalah pemohon adalah tidak sah kerana ia telah dibuat secara bersyarat iaitu pemohon hanya bersetuju untuk mengaku bersalah jika dia dikenakan hukuman denda sahaja - Pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas pemohon juga tidak menjelaskan kesalahan pemohon. 1 NOTIS USUL: Pemohon memfailkan satu permohonan Habeas Corpus terhadap perintah penahanannya bertarikh 27.6.2024 - Ketidakteraturan atau pelanggaran seksyen 4 Akta tersebut berhubung kenyataan atau rakaman percakapan yang diambil daripada pemohon - Laporan penyiasatan yang disediakan oleh Inspektor Polis Azharreidza Idzan bin Abdul Wahab di bawah seksyen 3(3) Akta tersebut adalah tidak lengkap Pelanggaran seksyen 5 akta tersebut apabila Pegawai Inkuiri gagal memanggil adik pemohon dalam penyediaan laporan kepada Menteri - Pelanggaran seksyen 6(1) Akta tersebut apabila Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri membuat keputusan berdasarkan laporan penyiasatan yang tidak lengkap. 1 Criminal Law — Dangerous Drugs —Drugs found in rented premises — Whether accused in exclusive possession, custody and control — Premises rented in name of third party — Failure to investigate named tenant — Presence of vehicles suggesting access by others — Keys not exclusively with accused — Access to premises by landlord — Whether prosecution failed to exclude access by third parties 1 Evidence — Burden of proof — Duty to exclude access by others to premises where drugs found — Competing inferences — Adverse inference — Failure to produce material evidence — Fingerprint and DNA reports not tendered despite existence — Whether court entitled to presume evidence unfavourable to prosecution — Evidence Act 1950 s 114(g) 1 Criminal Investigation — Duty of investigating officer — Failure to conduct thorough and impartial investigation — Failure to investigate tenant, vehicles and other potential occupants — Investigative deficiencies undermining prosecution case 1 JENAYAH: Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Methamphetamine seberat 8,246.8 gram - pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan satu kes Prima Facie - Seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - seksyen 399 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. 1 JENAYAH: Seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1950 - 22082 gram methamphetamine - 8 saksi pendakwaan dipanggil - jenis dan berat dadah - pemilikan - reaksi OKT ketika tangkapan - kegagalan memanggil Mohd Anuar - 2 saksi pembelaan - Penjara seumur hidup 30 tahun. 1 JENAYAH: Seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1950 - 188.4 gram methamphetamine - 5 saksi pendakwaan dipanggil - 4 saksi pembelaan - samada kedua-dua tertuduh mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah - OKT2 dilepas dan dibebaskan - OKT dijatuhkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup 30 tahun 12 sebatan. 1 JENAYAH: Seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB - 953.1 gram cannabis- 3.95 nitrazepam - 5 saksi dipanggil di peringkat pendakwaan - percanggahan berat barang kes- pengetahuan barang salah oleh tertuduh - akses terhadap kereta - penyiasatan pegawai penyiasat yang tidak lengkap - OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 JENAYAH: Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan satu kes Prima Facie - tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri - Seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya Seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah menjelaskan bahawa kes prima facie adalah telah berjaya ditimbulkan apabila pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan keterangan yang boleh dipercayai (credible evidence) menimbulkan satu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh. 1 Perbicaraan jenayah - 3 pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952; 1 Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah mendapati tiada kes prima facie dan Tertuduh-Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri; 1 Pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan milikan terhadap semua dadah yang dijumpai- status Tertuduh-Tertuduh diragui sama ada sebagai penyewa atau pelawat kepada rumah serbuan tersebut; 1 Anggapan statutori di bawah seksyen 37(da) (xvi) ADB 1952 tidak terpakai apabila milikan (possession) gagal dibuktikan. 1 JENAYAH: Seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1950 - 731.2 gram methamphetamine - 4 saksi pendakwaan dipanggil - samada kedua-dua tertuduh mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah - isu niat bersama - kegagalan siasatan pegawai penyiasat - seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan - OKT-OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - representasi yang dikemukakan oleh tertuduh, pihak pendakwaan telah menawarkan satu pertuduhan pertama pilihan kepada tertuduh di bawah Seksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Hukuman pemenjaraan selama 6 tahun 6 bulan bermula dari tarikh tertuduh ditangkap (3.6.2024) dan 10 sebatan. 1 JENAYAH: Seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1950 - 1436.1 gram methamphetamine - 12 orang saksi pendakwaan - pemilikan - pengedaran - keterangan DNA - prima facie gagal dibuktikan - OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. 1 JENAYAH: Dadah tersebut tersenarai di bawah ADB 1952 dan dengan berat seperti yang dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan - Dadah yang dirampas ada di dalam milikan OKT-OKT, iaitu OKT-OKT mempunyai jagaan dan kawalan ke atas dadah tersebut serta mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya; dan - OKT-OKT telah mengedarkan dadah berbahaya tersebut. 1 Perbicaraan jenayah - 3 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302, seksyen 307 dan seksyen 376(1) / 511 Kanun Keseksaan; 1 Tertuduh mengubah pengakuan kepada pengakuan bersalah semasa perbicaraan berlangsung di peringkat kes pendakwaan; 1 Ketiga-tiga pertuduhan dibaca dan diterangkan semula dan Tertuduh faham sifat dan akibat pengakuannya; 1 Mahkamah mempertimbangkan faktor mitigasi dan pemberatan dalam menjatuhkan hukuman menurut peruntukan kesalahan (sentencing provision) yang difikirkan adil, wajar dan munasabah. 1 ATIPSOM : menyeludup migran seramai 14 orang - Tertuduh telah mengaku memahami penerangan hakim perbicaran tersebut dan masih ingin mengekalkan pengakuan bersalahnya terhadap pertuduhan tersebut - , peguam bela tertuduh merayu untuk suatu hukuman pemenjaraan yang paling minima dan memohon agar hukuman pemenjaraan bermula dari tarikh tertuduh ditangkap. 1 Family Law – Application to vary – Whether Husband had demonstrated material change in circumstances sufficient to justify a reduction of payments he was required to make to the Wife pursuant to the Decree Nisi - Whether Husband's remarriage and his ensuing financial obligations towards his new family constituted grounds for a variation of the spousal maintenance payable to the Wife 1 Application to remove a liquidator- winding up Order- directors of company- Director General of Insolvency- Pre action Discovery- Companies Act 2016- dissolution within the reasonable time- general duties of liquidator- list of the contributors- liquidator’s licence- Whether the removal of the liquidator on the ground that he had no valid license is justified or warranted- sole shareholder- Whether the application to remove the liquidator must be supported by all the contributories and creditors- Whether all the creditors were served with the notice of the application- discharge of duties with sufficient promptitude- liquidator must act fairly and impartially in administering the liquidation-"condition" of obtaining support -cause shown - creditors’ claims take priority over contributories 1 Judicial Review - Dismissal was wrongful, unlawful and legally invalid - Premature Dismissal - no appealable error - Commitment Document - acted bona fide – not amount to misconduct 1 Conditional stay application - whether a conditional stay should be granted if there is a risk of dissipation of judgment sum – condition of stay is for payment to be made to solicitors for both parties on equal basis-whether such a condition imposed will lead to dissipation of the said judgment sum 1 Tort — Negligence — Prison authority — Death in custody — Suicide — No foreseeable risk — No liability — Appeal dismissed 1 Joint Venture Agreement; wrongful caveat; section 329(1) National Land Code; compensation for damages suffered as a result of wrongful caveat; developer's additional financing ocsts. 1 Appeal 313 was the Plaintiff’s Appeal against the Learned JC’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for alleged rent arrears for both Rented Lots (and alternatively against the Learned JC’s decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for trespass specifically upon the Unidentifiable Land) 1 Appeal 373 was the Defendant’s Appeal against the Learned JC’s decision to allow the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for trespassing the Access Road in the interim when the acquisition was first commenced until the time the Access Road was appropriately vested unto the State Authority. 1 Termination of Tenancy Agreement – Lifting the Corporate Veil - the lifting of corporate veil is to impose liability on individuals and not a company- the facts and evidence as disclosed do not amount to equitable and constructive fraud to justify the lifting of the corporate veil- Clause 39 of the SPA – Unpaid Rent – Group Companies - ss 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 - 1 Land charged to the Bank – 3rd party chargor for a revolving credit facility granted to a borrower – borrower defaulted the credit facility – foreclosure action taken - order for sale granted – borrower liquidated – issue raised was whether Form 75 which did not state the indebtedness of the borrower and that there was a surplus of money in the said account therefore the chargor owes no liability to the Bank. 1 seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun - gambar rakaman CCTV - prinsip “last seen together" boleh digunapakai sebagai sebahagian keterangan sokongan - penemuan ekshibit-ekshibit (kayu, kain rantai mangga dan sebagainya) adalah hasil daripada maklumat dan tunjuk arah oleh tertuduh - penemuan DNA tertuduh dan DNA si mati - fakta material bagi membuktikan tertuduh berada bersama-sama si mati - kecederaan-kecederaan adalah 'fatal in nature' dan boleh menyebabkan kematian - kecederaan yang dialami si mati adalah tidak konsisten dengan corak yang diakibatkan oleh perlakuan diri sendiri atau kemalangan - isu niat bersama - kematian terjadi hasil daripada perancangan awal (pre-arranged plan) yang direncanakan (orchestrated) oleh tertuduh dan seorang lagi yang masih bebas - kelakuan tertuduh adalah relevan di bawah seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 – pembelaan telah dipatahkan oleh keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan keterangan tertuduh sendiri - pembelaan hanyalah suatu pembohongan, penafian kosong, tidak boleh dipercayai, pemikiran terkemudian dan rekaan semata-mata - Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 (Akta 846) - hukuman pemenjaraan selama tiga puluh tahun (30) bermula dari tarikh tangkap (13 April 2018) dan dua belas (12) kali sebatan 1 Isu: Sama ada terputusnya rantaian keterangan – Sama ada wujud kacau ganggu terhadap barang kes – Sama ada tertuduh merupakan seorang “innocent carrier” / pembawa yang tidak bersalah - pembelaan bersifat pemikiran terkemudian dan yang direka bagi menafikan pengetahuan - seksyen 8 dan seksyen 14 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct - Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body or bodily feeling - konsep “kebutaan sengaja” (“wilfull blindness") - versi pembelaan yang dibangkitkan ini hanyalah suatu pembohongan, penafian kosong, tidak boleh dipercayai, pemikiran terkemudian dan rekaan semata-mata yang tidak mampu mematahkan anggapan pengedaran yang berbangkit atau menimbulkan apa-apa keraguan munasabah terhadap kemantapan kes pendakwaan - Sama ada anggapan di bawah seksyen 114(g) akta keterangan 1950 boleh diguna pakai terhadap tertuduh - inferens bertentangan – tiada prejudiskan atau sebarang salah laksana keadilan (miscarriage of justice) - tertuduh telah gagal mengakas anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - faktor kepentingan awam - rayuan mitigasi tertuduh - jumlah dadah yang terlibat - faktor peringanan 1 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – agent provocateur – milikan (possession) atau kawalan (custody) dan pengetahuan (knowledge) – innocent carrier – rantaian pergerakan barang kes – anggapan pengedaran di bawah Seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952 – beban pembuktian terhadap Tertuduh untuk menyangkal anggapan pengedaran atas imbangan kebarangkalian – keterangan CCTV dan cap jari bersifat sebagai keterangan sokongan 1 Undang-undang jenayah — s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 — Mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis (448 gram) — Perayu disabitkan dan dijatuhi hukuman penjara seumur hidup dari tarikh tangkapan serta dua belas sebatan. 1 Rayuan – Mahkamah rayuan mempunyai kuasa menilai semula keterangan walaupun alasan penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi tidak terperinci – Dakwaan perayu bahawa beliau bersama Zahid dan Tina ditolak – keterangan SP1 dan SP2 membuktikan perayu seorang diri ketika ditahan – Penafian perayu dianggap penafian kosong – dapatan fakta Mahkamah Tinggi tidak wajar diganggu. 1 Isu kegagalan memanggil pengawal keselamatan Nepal – tidak menimbulkan anggapan bertentangan kerana bukan saksi material – keterangan SP1 dan SP2 mencukupi – Undang-undang tidak memerlukan bilangan saksi tertentu untuk membuktikan fakta. 1 Isu ketiadaan “overt act” dan tiada kesan dadah pada badan/pakaian – tidak menafikan milikan dan kawalan terhadap dadah – dadah dijumpai dalam raga motosikal membuktikan pengetahuan Perayu. 1 Berat dadah jenis cannabis 448 gram – berat yang melebihi had statutory – anggapan pengedaran terpakai – Perayu gagal mematahkan anggapan pengedaran dan gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah. 1 Keputusan – Rayuan terhadap sabitan ditolak - rayuan terhadap hukuman juga ditolak – hukuman oleh Mahkamah Tinggi dikekalkan. 1 Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pemakaian anggapan mengedar menurut Seksyen 37(da)(vi) ADB 1952 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Seksyen 8 dan 9 Akta Keterangan 1950 – “mere denial” – Percanggahan antara Borang Bongkar dan Borang Serah ¬– “minor omission” yang tidak mencacatkan kes pendakwaan 1 Principal issue: whether an appellant who pleaded guilty is entitled to appeal against his conviction. 1 Section 305 CPC: no appeal lies against conviction following a guilty plea, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence. 1 Settled law: a voluntary, informed, and unequivocal guilty plea bars an appeal against conviction, provided the plea is properly recorded in compliance with section 173(b) CPC. 1 Appellate intervention: only justified where the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory safeguards under section 173(b) CPC, rendering the plea invalid. 1 Review of record: the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had fully complied with section 173(b) CPC — charge properly explained, facts and exhibits admitted without qualification, and mitigation heard before sentence. 1 Final decision: application to amend the Petition of Appeal dismissed. 1 Appeal against conviction dismissed as barred by section 305 CPC. 1 Appeal against sentence dismissed as the sentence imposed was the minimum prescribed by law and neither excessive nor illegal. 1 Conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court affirmed. 1 Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Isu: Sama ada wujud kes prima facie terhadap kedua-dua tertuduh - kawalan atau jagaan serta pengetahuan terhadap dadah - niat bersama - agent provovateur - Inferens daripada tingkah laku menunjukkan mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap kewujudan dadah - seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - kebolehterimaan (credibility) keterangan - seksyen 40A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - evidence of agent provocateur admissible - seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - seksyen 37 (da)(iii)) Akta yang sama – Isu: Kekhilafan penggunaan anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - “penjualan” merupakan keterangan langsung (direct evidence) – tiada (appealable errors) – Isu: Sama ada terdapat percanggahan material di dalam kes pendakwaan - percanggahan-percanggahan bukanlah suatu yang material yang mencacatkan kes pendakwaan – tidak memusnahkan kredibiliti saksi-saksi pendakwaan - tidak menjejaskan pembuktikan core issues pemilikan dadah - kuasa ingatan (power of memory) seseorang adalah berbeza – Isu: Kegagalan mempertimbangkan keterangan tertuduh dan saksi-saksi pembelaan - seksyen 182A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 1 seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - kebenaran di bawah seksyen 61 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 - pengemukaan “fresh evidence” di peringkat rayuan - prinsip-prinsip di dalam kes Murugayah v. PP [2004] 2 CLJ 489 - keterangan baru adalah relevan - untuk keadilan sesuatu kes dan bukannya sesuatu yang bersifat amalan - keterangan yang hendak dikemukakan tidak ada pada masa perbicaraan - keterangan tambahan mesti relevan kepada isu berbangkit – keterangan tidak mempunyai nilai probative - keterangan kredibel dan boleh dipercayai - keterangan tambahan boleh menimbulkan keraguan di minda hakim bicara jika diberikan bersama keterangan yang lain di waktu perbicaraan - keadaan mental (state of mind) dan fizikal pemohon - situasi yang luarbiasa (exceptional circumstances) 1 Offence under section 5(1)(c) of the Trade Description Act 2011 read together with section 6 (1)(g) of the same Act - Whether the Appellant was a person who exposes for supply the Cigarettes or has in possession, custody or control of the Cigarettes for supply - Whether the Cigarettes being goods in transit and transshipment en route to a third-party consignee in the Philippines can be subject to seizure and forfeiture enforcement under section 47 of the Trade Description Act 2011 1 Rayuan Sivil — Had masa — Seksyen 6(1)(a) Akta Had Masa 1953 — Tarikh kausa tindakan terakru — Kontrak pinjaman — Kegagalan membayar balik — Pembayaran selepas breach — Sama ada menghidupkan semula had masa — Seksyen 26 dan 27 — Keperluan pengakuan bertulis dan ditandatangani — Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 KKM 2012 — Plain and obvious — Tindakan dihalang had masa — Rayuan ditolak. 1 1. Appeal against Magistrate’s apportionment (70% Defendant : 30% Plaintiff). 1 2. Two conflicting versions: alleged lane change vs rear-end collision. 1 3. Magistrate misappreciated physical evidence; damage was rear, not right side. 1 4. SP1 & SP2: Plaintiff speeding (100–110 km/h), failed to keep safe distance; summons issued. 1 5. Damage pattern: Plaintiff (front), Defendant (rear) = rear-end impact. 1 6. Legal duty: rear vehicle must maintain safe distance. 1 7. Objective evidence outweighs credibility findings. 1 8. Magistrate’s finding unsustainable. 1 9. Appeal allowed; liability wholly on Plaintiff; claim dismissed; costs awarded. 1 1. Appeal against Magistrate’s decision allowing Plaintiff’s friendly loan claim (RM60,350.00; 5% interest). 1 2. Two transfers: RM55,350.00 (08.04.2019) & RM5,000.00 (19.10.2019). 1 3. Defendant admits receipt; burden shifts to deny friendly loan (Tan Aik Teck; Evidence Act ss.101–102). 1 4. Key witness (Lee Tien Full) not called - adverse inference under s.114(g). 1 5. Defendant’s version unsupported; documents contradict narrative. 1 6. RM55,350.00 & RM5,000.00 proven as friendly loan; defence hearsay. 1 7. No misdirection by Magistrate; factual findings upheld. 1 8. Appeal dismissed; Magistrate’s judgment affirmed; costs RM5,000.00. 1 Rayuan Sivil — Gangguan / manipulasi meter elektrik — Tuntutan kehilangan hasil — Garis Panduan Suruhanjaya Tenaga — Tafsiran tempoh tuntutan lima (5) tahun — Sama ada dapatan Mahkamah Majistret wajar dicampur tangan — Prinsip campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap dapatan fakta — Thomas Thomas v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2017] 4 CLJ 340 — Perbezaan antara liabiliti kontrak pembekalan elektrik dan tuntutan pihak ketiga tuan tanah–penyewa — Beban pembuktian — Ss. 101 & 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 — Inferens sivil — Imbangan kebarangkalian — Sama ada penyewa secara automatik bertanggungjawab atas manipulasi meter — Ketiadaan bukti langsung — Had inferens — Sama ada liabiliti boleh dipindahkan kepada pihak ketiga — Tuntutan pihak ketiga gagal — Liabiliti kekal pada 1 1. The Court heard the Plaintiff’s application under Order 55 Rule 7 ROC 2012 to adduce new evidence at the appeal stage. 1 2. The Plaintiff sought to introduce the Defendant Company’s Financial Reports (2016–2018) and the electricity bill of the rented premises. 1 3. The Court found that both documents could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial. 1 4. The evidence would not have a determining influence on the Magistrate’s decision and lacked sufficient probative value. 1 5. The Plaintiff also failed to satisfy the credibility limb under Ladd v Marshall. 1 6. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s applications (Enclosure 24 & 25) are dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 (RM2,500.00 each appeal), subject to allocator. 1 Judgment in default – regular vs irregular; setting aside regular JID after assessment; natural justice; functus officio; Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) scheme; privity; meritorious defence; delay and conduct 1 1. Appeal: Filed by First & Second Defendants against Sessions Court decision dated 17.12.2024 dismissing their O18 r19 ROC striking-out application. 1 2. Third Party Notices: Issued pursuant to leave granted on 9.3.2023; not set aside. 1 3. Issue: Whether the appeal is competent under Section 28(1)(c) CJA 1964 (non-appealable striking-out refusal). 1 4. Finding: Amendment to s.28 applies retrospectively; appeal on dismissal of striking-out is barred. 1 5. Decision: Appeal incompetent in limine; dismissed with RM7,000 costs. 1 Rayuan – Tort – Kemalangan Jalan Raya – Rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menolak permohonan Perayu untuk kebenaran membuka semula kes Perayu di Makamah Sesyen dan juga rayuan berkenaan liabiliti dan kuantum bagi suatu tuntutan gantirugi terhadap Perayu – Sama ada kemalangan diakibatkan oleh motosikal yang dibonceng oleh Responden Pertama melanggar lubang yang terletak di atas jalan yang diselenggara oleh Perayu atau jalan lain yang bukan diselenggarakan oleh Perayu dan apakah punca kemalangan - Sama ada disebabkan rantai motosikal terputus atau motosikal Responden Kedua terlanggar lubang atas jalan – Sama ada Mahkamah wajar membenarkan Notis Permohonan untuk Perayu membuka semula kes di Makamah Sesyen – Keterangan lisan berbeza dengan laporan perubatan dan artikel keratan akhbar – Perlepasan yang material (fundamental departure) – Imbangan kebarangkalian – Arahan untuk menutup kes pembelaan tanpa memanggil saksi pembelaan tidak adil – Kekhilafan ketidaksediaan Alasan Penghakiman mengenai permohonan kebenaran membuka semula kes walaupun rayuan telah difailkan 1 Rayuan Sivil – Permohonan Mencelah oleh Syarikat Insurans dalam Tindakan Running-Down. Tort – Kemalangan jalan raya – Tindakan running-down – Permohonan syarikat insurans untuk mencelah sebagai pencelah/defendan kedua – “Legal interest” vs “commercial interest” – Polisi insurans dan isu coverage – Dakwaan fraud dan collusion – Kelewatan memfail dan menyerahkan Notis Rayuan – Standard campur tangan Mahkamah Atasan terhadap budi bicara Mahkamah Sesyen. 1 1. Mahkamah ini telah meneliti rekod rayuan, alasan penghakiman dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak. 1 2. Isu utama ialah sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen silap menolak Lampiran 117 dan 127 bagi pindaan Writ dan Penyata Tuntutan Terpinda. 1 3. Mahkamah mendapati permohonan pindaan difailkan lewat tanpa alasan munasabah dan boleh mengubah versi kejadian. 1 4. Tiada “appealable error” atau “plainly wrong” dalam keputusan Hakim Bicara. 1 5. Oleh itu, rayuan ditolak dan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen bertarikh 31.7.2024 dikekalkan. 1 A.18, k.19(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (“KKM”), tuntutan pampasan gantirugi oleh Perayu, s.7(5) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956, KM 44 Jalan Kota Tinggi-Kluang, Johor, dependency claim, Pang Yeow Chow v. Advance Specialist Treatment Engineering Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 MLRA 685, Lee Kuang Guat (suing as the father of the decased, Lee Chu Ling) v Chiang Woei Chien (practicing as Chiang Chambers, Advocates and Solicitors) [2021] 3 MLJ 505, 1 1. Appeal against Sessions Court refusal to amend Statement of Claim. 1 2. Amendment sought after omission discovered during trial. 1 3. Principles: O20 r5 ROC 2012; Yamaha; Hong Leong Finance. 1 4. Preliminary issue: appealability under s.28(1)(a) CJA 1964. 1 5. Definition of “decision” - s.3 CJA; interlocutory ruling. 1 6. Authorities: Asia Pacific Higher Learning; Kempadang Bersatu; Christopher AK Bandi. 1 7. Mid-trial amendment = non-final ruling; not appealable. 1 8. Appeal incompetent in limine. 1 9. Appeal dismissed; costs RM6,000.00. 1 Warrant to Act presented by lawyer to client as Plaintiff in suit against another-property 1/2 share owned by each Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant- 2nd and 3rd Defendant assisted Plaintiff due to old age of Plaintiff-manner of assistance rendered whether implicitly an indication of solicitor-client relationship 1 1. This appeal concerns the Defendant’s challenge against the Sessions Court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Plaintiff under Order 14 ROC 2012. 1 2. The core issue is whether service of Notices of Assessment for Years 2017 and 2018 was duly effected under section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act 1967. 1 3. Evidence shows the notices were properly sent to the Defendant’s last known address as declared in Form C. 1 4. The Defendant failed to notify any address change under section 89 of the same Act. 1 5. The Sessions Court’s decision was correct. 1 6. Appeal dismissed with costs of RM8,000 subject to allocator. 1 The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court’s order dated 27.6.2024 made pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Court found that D1 did not act in her personal capacity but as Chairman of D2, a registered society. Applying the doctrine of privity of contract and section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966, there was no cause of action against D1. The Writ of Summon and Statement of Claim against D1 was set aside. 1 Prosedur Sivil — Rayuan interlokutori — Skop campur tangan Mahkamah Tinggi — Sama ada salah arah prinsip atau ketidakadilan nyata — Hong Kwi Seong v Ganad Media Sdn Bhd Prosedur Sivil — Penghakiman ingkar kehadiran — Aturan 13 kaedah 6 KKM 2012 — Sama ada penghakiman diperoleh secara mekanikal — Pengurusan kehakiman, afidavit dan hujahan bertulis — Regular judgment Prosedur Sivil — Mengetepikan penghakiman — Had masa mandatori — Aturan 42 kaedah 13 KKM 2012 — Pengiraan dari tarikh penerimaan perintah — Kegagalan memfailkan dalam 30 hari — Permohonan tidak kompeten Prosedur Sivil — Pelanjutan masa — Kelewatan melampau — Alasan dalaman — Beban pembuktian — Khor Cheng Wah v Sungai Way Leasing Sdn Bhd Prosedur Sivil — Penyampaian proses — Writ Saman dan Penyata Tuntutan — Penyampaian kendiri — Afidavit Penyampaian — Aturan 62 kaedah 4 KKM 2012 — Penyampaian sah dan teratur Prosedur Sivil — Regular judgment lwn Irregular judgment — Prinsip ex debito justitiae — Ketidakpatuhan prosedur asas — Tuan Haji Ahmed Abdul Rahman v Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd; Jay Pee Huat v Pembangunan Warisan Prosedur Sivil — Pembelaan bermerit — Penafian kosong — Sham defence — Beban ke atas Defendan — Malayan Cement Industries Bhd v Yimatch Sdn Bhd Prosedur Sivil — Kepastian litigasi — Keadilan kepada pihak yang berdisiplin — Rayuan ditolak 1 Prosedur Sivil — Kuasa inheren Mahkamah — Aturan 92 kaedah 4 KKM 2012 — Skop terhad — Bukan lesen memintas prosedur bertulis — Penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah Prosedur Sivil — Mandatory injunction sebelum bicara — Relief muktamad — Tidak boleh diperoleh melalui kuasa inherent — Datuk Seri S. Nallakaruppan v Public Prosecutor Prosedur Sivil — Rayuan interlokutori — Sekatan campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan — Tiada salah arah prinsip atau ketidakadilan nyata — R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia Akta Keterangan — Penghakiman terdahulu — Kebolehterimaan terhad — Seksyen 40–43 Akta Keterangan 1950 — Bukan res judicata / judgment in rem Prosedur Sivil — Kepastian litigasi — Penyalahgunaan proses — Rayuan ditolak — Kos kepada Responden 1 Rayuan Penghakiman Terus; Aturan 14 KKM 2012; Perjanjian Jual Beli Jadual G; Penyerahan Milikan Kosong Lewat; Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD); Harga Belian Penuh vs Harga Selepas Rebet; Kontrak Berkanun Pemajuan Perumahan; Peraturan-Peraturan Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1989; Akta 829 (COVID-19) s.35; Relif Sementara; Penstrukturan Semula Pengurusan Syarikat; Liabiliti Kontraktual Syarikat Sebagai Entiti Berasingan; Rayuan Ditolak; Kos Rayuan. 1 A.18, k.19(1)(a),(b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (“KKM”), Pacific Mall Johor Bahru, Tetap Meriah Sdn Bhd, Penghakiman 2003, s.256 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965, Application for Execution No.38-249-2003, s.6 Akta Had Masa 1953, Shearn Delamore v Co v Sadacharamani Govindasamy [2017] 1 MLJ 486, Credit Corporation (M) Bhd v Fong Tak Sing [1991] 1 MLJ 409, di ms 873, 1 Appeal against the decision of the Session Court Judge on quantum –– road accident–– motorcycle accident –– tort –– no misapprehension of facts –– no wholly erroneous estimation –– permanent disability –– accelerated and aggravated osteoarthritis –– domestic helper costs –– future medical expenses –– whether the amount of quantum against the Appellants is manifestly excessive 1 Rayuan sivil - rayuan oleh Plaintif terhadap keputusan yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkaitan dengan kuantum gantirugi - prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan secara umumnya tidak akan campur tangan terhadap keputusan mahkamah dalam membuat keputusan 1 Catchwords: (L3) Rayuan — Prosedur — Kegagalan memfailkan Rekod Rayuan dalam masa — Aturan 55 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Sama ada syarat mandatori — Tiada permohonan lanjutan masa dibuat dalam tempoh — Sama ada Notis Rayuan patut dibatalkan — Budibicara Mahkamah — Kecuaian peguamcara — Sama ada alasan mencukupi — Prejudis kepada Responden — Keadilan prosedural — Integriti peraturan had masa — Sama ada merit rayuan boleh mengatasi ketidakpatuhan mandatori. 1 H. Catchwords Rayuan — Kemalangan jalan raya — Keterangan bercanggah — Bukti objektif — Gambar kerosakan kenderaan — Perlanggaran bahagian belakang — Penukaran lorong — Kebarangkalian versi — Liabiliti — Sumbang cuai — Pembahagian liabiliti 80:20 — Kuantum — Gangguan award — Laporan pakar terkini — Kecederaan kepala — Pengurangan gantirugi — Pertindanan award — Potongan 15% — Kos rayuan — Kejayaan separa — Kos terhad (50%). 1 Rayuan — Saman Pemula — Percanggahan fakta material mengenai penyerahan dokumen — Injunksi mandatori — Kewajipan statutori vs hak litigasi — Kegagalan membuktikan hak undang-undang yang jelas dan boleh dikuatkuasakan — Yew Sow Chee v Alam Langkawi Sdn Bhd & Anor dibezakan — Pengurusan strata — Penamatan pengurus harta — Tuntutan balas bayaran pro-rata/lien — Akta Kontrak 1950 ss.123 & 124 — Dokumen bukan “goods” —Isu sampingan (afidavit hearsay, keadilan, kepentingan awam) tidak menjejaskan dapatan teras — Bukan penolakan prosedural semata-mata —Rayuan ditolak — Tuntutan balas diketepikan — Kos. 1 Mahkamah Tinggi — Rayuan — Kemalangan jalan raya — Quantum — Liabiliti dipersetujui (90:10) — Prinsip sekatan campur tangan mahkamah rayuan (appellate restraint) — Campur tangan hanya jika misdirection / wrong principle / wholly erroneous estimate / award inordinately high atau inordinately low — Goh Pit Leng v Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd & Ors — Pang Ah Chee v Chong Kwee Sang — Pahang Lim Siong Motor Co & Anor v Cheong Swee Khai & Anor — United Plywood & Sawmill Ltd v Kock Ngan Loi — Kow Ah Dek v K Ratnasingam — Tan Kuan Yau v Suhirdinmani — Kovalan a/l Rajoo v Hanif bin Muhamad Pauzi. 1 Ganti rugi am — Kecederaan ortopedik — Closed comminuted fracture right tibia/fibula — Laporan perubatan terkini — Keutamaan laporan terkini berbanding laporan lama — Muhamad Bin Sulaiman v Siti Naquiah — Muhammad Hanif bin Ishak v Mohamad Syazwan — Fraktur “well united” — Residual disability “mild” — Kembali bekerja — Award RM28,000 — Dalam julat munasabah — Tidak “inordinately high/low” — Award dikekalkan — Rayuan Balas untuk menaikkan award ditolak. 1 Keterangan — Dokumen pendapatan — Seksyen 73A Akta Keterangan 1950 — Kebolehterimaan dokumen — Dokumen dipertikai tidak boleh digunakan tanpa dibuktikan keterimaan/ketulenan — Kaedah “tanda sebagai eksibit lalu kandungan dianggap benar” ditolak — Kewajipan panggil pembuat dokumen / reasonable efforts — Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd — Mahmod Kailan v Goh Seng Choon & Anor — Strict proof dokumen pendapatan — P4 & P5 dibatalkan sebagai eksibit; kekal sebagai ID — Analogi isu kebolehpercayaan sistem/rekod — Public Prosecutor v Chan Khee Hiang. 1 Beban bukti — Seksyen 101–103 Akta Keterangan 1950 — Loss of earning — Kegagalan buktikan pendapatan sebenar tanpa dokumen yang diterima — Award RM52,255 dibatalkan. 1 Loss of future earning / loss of earning capacity — Keperluan bukti material terhadap kebolehpasaran/risiko pekerjaan/penurunan pendapatan — Elak spekulasi — Chan Wai Tong v Li Ping Sum — Woo Yut Ching v Tang See Fong — Kembali bekerja — Disability “mild” — Tiada bukti risiko kehilangan kerja/penurunan gaji — Award RM20,000 dibatalkan — Rayuan Balas ditolak. 1 Perintah — Rayuan Perayu dibenarkan sebahagian — (i) P4 & P5 dibatalkan sebagai eksibit (kekal ID); (ii) Loss of earning dibatalkan; (iii) Loss of future earning/capacity dibatalkan — Award tibia/fibula RM28,000 dikekalkan — Award lain Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan — Rayuan Balas ditolak sepenuhnya — Kos rayuan RM4,000. 1 Satu rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen - isu kuantum gantirugi am bagi kehilangan kebertanggungan (loss of support) - satu kemalangan jalanraya - Seksyen 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 (pindaan 1984) - ganti rugi am - ganti rugi khas - kehilangan tanggungan - faedah - kos disebabkan kehilangan dan kerugian - keterangan inherently improbable - Seksyen 7(3)(iv)(d) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956. 1 Prosedur Sivil – Rayuan – Rayuan balas – Kompetensi rayuan balas – Sama ada rayuan balas boleh meliputi isu yang tidak dirayu oleh Perayu – Keperluan memfailkan rayuan tersendiri – Rayuan balas difailkan lewat – Aturan 55 Kaedah 8 KKM 2012 – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a)–(d) – Sama ada tindakan tidak berasas, remeh, menyusahkan atau prejudis – Penyalahgunaan proses – Autoriti diaplikasi: Kabushiki Kaisha Ngu v Leisure Farm Corp; Re Cavander’s Trusts; In Re Parker; Dr Chong Eng Leong v Harris Salleh. 1 Pada 24 Mei 2017, Plaintif dimasukkan ke HSA Johor Bahru untuk bersalin. Bayi mengalami hypoxia, meninggal empat hari kemudian. Plaintif cedera teruk dan trauma. Mahkamah mendapati Defendan cuai, mengawardkan lebih RM600,000 gantirugi serta kos. Rayuan balas Plaintif untuk menaikkan kuantum ditolak, keputusan asal HMS dikekalkan sepenuhnya. A.59 k.7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi (A Child Suing Through Her Father And Next Friend; Mohd Helmi Abdul Aziz) v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 1 MLRA 647; [2016] 2 CLJ 885. Sambaga Valli KR Ponnusamy v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors and Another Appeal [2018] 3 MLRA 488. 1 1. The Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) appealed against the Sessions Court’s decision dismissing their claim under Sections 7 and 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956. 1 2. The Court finds both the deceased and the First Defendant negligent, with liability apportioned equally (50:50). 1 3. The dependency claim is allowed, the bereavement claim is dismissed, and the special damages are partially revised. 1 4. The Plaintiffs are awarded RM85,285.50, comprising RM82,848.00 (dependency) and RM2,437.50 (special damages), subject to 50% contributory negligence. 1 5. Interest at 5% per annum from the date of writ until full satisfaction. 1 6.Costs fixed at RM8,000 subject to allocator. 1 7. Appeal allowed in part. 1 1. Keywords: Appeal, Liability, Rear-End Collision, Credibility, Dependency, Act 67 1 2. Issue: Appeal against SCJ’s findings of 100% contributory negligence and dismissal of claim. 1 3. Evidence: SCJ accepted D1’s version - already in right lane, signalled, turning right; deceased collided from rear. 1 4. Findings: Physical damage supported rear-end impact; SP3’s evidence neutral. 1 5. Dependency: Monthly contribution rightly assessed at RM500; loss of dependency RM96,000; bereavement RM10,000. 1 6. Law: No misdirection; SCJ applied correct principles and evaluated credibility. 1 7. Decision: Appeal dismissed; SCJ’s findings on liability and quantum affirmed. 1 Pada 7 Januari 2019, motosikal P bertembung dengan motolori D1 di Ulu Tiram. P mendakwa D1 memotong kiri lalu membelok kanan secara tiba-tiba. Mahkamah menolak pembelaan D1/D2, memutuskan mereka bertanggungjawab penuh dan memberi gantirugi. UEM Group Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2010] 2 MLRA 668 di m.s. 675. Superintendent of Lands And Surveys Kuching Division & Anor v Mohamad Rambli Kawi [2014] 1 LNS 851. Sambaga Valli K R Ponnusamy v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors & Another Appeal [2018] 3 MLRA 488; [2017] CLJU 500 1 Tort – Kemalangan jalan raya – Beban pembuktian – Akta Keterangan 1950 ss 101–102 – Kegagalan plaintif membuktikan penglibatan defendan – Percanggahan keterangan – Dokumen kontemporari – Penilaian kredibiliti saksi – Campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan – Prinsip plainly wrong – Insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence – Kuantum – Taksiran gantirugi bersyarat – Tiada liabiliti – Insurans motor – Rayuan balas penanggung insurans – Remedi deklaratori – Isu akademik – Tiada keperluan deklarasi – Rayuan ditolak – Kos dalam kos 1 TORT: Kecuaian — Kerosakan akibat banjir — Projek pembinaan sistem tebatan banjir — Dakwaan kegagalan mengambil langkah berjaga-jaga bagi mengelak banjir kilat — Sama ada defendan mempunyai kewajipan menjaga kepentingan terhadap plaintif — Sama ada kewajipan tersebut telah dilanggar — Sama ada wujud hubungan sebab-akibat antara pelanggaran dan kerugian — Sama ada plaintif berjaya membuktikan kecuaian atas imbangan kebarangkalian — Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 dan Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd v Stephan Phoa Cheng Loon [2003] 1 MLJ 567 dirujuk. 1 KETERANGAN: Keterangan dokumentar — Laporan disediakan oleh pihak ketiga dan dikemukakan melalui saksi agensi — Pembuat laporan tidak dipanggil — Sama ada laporan boleh diterima di bawah s.73A Akta Keterangan 1950 — Keperluan best evidence rule — Kesan kegagalan memanggil pembuat laporan — Anggapan buruk di bawah s.114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 — Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd [2025] 6 CLJ 855 digunakan; Mahmod Kailan v Goh Seng Choon & Anor [1976] 2 MLJ 239 diikuti. 1 PROSEDUR SIVIL: Beban pembuktian — Plaintif mendakwa kecuaian — Kegagalan mengemukakan dokumen yang boleh diterima — Sama ada beban pembuktian beralih kepada defendan — Seksyen 101–102 Akta Keterangan 1950 dirujuk. 1 PEMBELAAN: Act of God — Banjir kilat disebabkan hujan lebat dan fenomena air pasang — Sama ada kejadian boleh dijangka dan dielakkan dengan langkah munasabah — Unsur utama pembelaan act of God — Punca semula jadi dan ketidakbolehjangkaan — Hoon Wee Thim v Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation [1966] 2 MLJ 240 dirujuk. 1 Fakta Kes Perayu ialah pemilik Amansari Hotel City Centre yang terletak di Jalan Wong Ah Fook, Johor Bahru. Responden Pertama dan Kedua ialah syarikat yang terlibat dalam projek Sistem Tebatan Banjir dan Rangkaian Paip Pembetungan Sungai Segget, di bawah pengawasan Iskandar Regional Development Authority (IRDA). 1 Perayu mendakwa bahawa akibat daripada kecuaian dan kegagalan responden-responden dalam melaksanakan kerja-kerja projek dengan sempurna, banjir kilat pada 16 November 2015 telah menyebabkan air Sungai Segget melimpah masuk ke hotel miliknya, mengakibatkan kerosakan dan kerugian. 1 Responden-responden menafikan dakwaan tersebut dengan menyatakan bahawa mereka telah mengambil langkah berjaga-jaga yang wajar dan bahawa kejadian tersebut merupakan bencana alam (Act of God) yang berpunca daripada fenomena air pasang dan hujan lebat yang luar biasa. 1 Mahkamah Sesyen menolak tuntutan perayu setelah mendapati laporan utama yang dikemukakan oleh perayu — Laporan Kejadian Banjir Kilat (ID7) yang disediakan oleh UR Rekacipta Sdn Bhd untuk IRDA — tidak boleh diterima sebagai keterangan kerana pembuat laporan tidak dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan. Mahkamah juga memutuskan bahawa perayu gagal membuktikan unsur-unsur kecuaian. Rayuan difailkan ke Mahkamah Tinggi. Diputuskan (Rayuan ditolak dengan kos RM5,000): 1 Keterangan dokumentar (Admissibility): Laporan ID7 tidak boleh diterima sebagai keterangan di bawah seksyen 73A Akta Keterangan 1950 kerana pembuat laporan tidak dipanggil dan tiada usaha munasabah dibuat untuk mengesahkan ketulenan atau kehadirannya. Saksi SP3 daripada IRDA bukan pembuat laporan dan tidak mempunyai pengetahuan langsung terhadap kandungannya. Prinsip best evidence rule terpakai dan mahkamah berhak menarik anggapan buruk di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950. (Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd [2025] 6 CLJ 855 digunakan; Mahmod Kailan v Goh Seng Choon & Anor [1976] 2 MLJ 239 diikuti). 1 Beban pembuktian: Beban undang-undang adalah pada perayu untuk membuktikan kes kecuaian terhadap responden-responden. Tanpa keterangan dokumentar yang boleh diterima, perayu gagal menubuhkan kes prima facie, dan oleh itu beban pembuktian tidak beralih kepada responden. (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; Arab-Malaysian Finan 1 Rayuan Sivil – Kontrak Binaan – Sub-kontrak – Tuntutan kemajuan (Progress Claim No. 22) – Kerja siap & variasi – Bukti “summary of engineering quantity calculation” – QLASSIC certification – Tiada aduan kecacatan – Set-off melalui Perjanjian Jual Beli apartmen (unit kondominium) – Set-off separa, bukan penyelesaian penuh – Minit mesyuarat tulisan tangan 19.4.2022 – Supplementary Agreement (2) tidak ditandatangani – Dokumen lewat dikemukakan – Kegagalan memanggil saksi material (s.114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950) – Kebolehpercayaan saksi SD1 dipertikai – Beban pembuktian s.101 Akta Keterangan – Pembelaan tidak diplidkan / unpleaded defence – Pihak terikat kepada pliding – Peranan pliding elak “trial by ambush” – Kuasa mahkamah rayuan – “Plainly wrong test” – Deference kepada dapatan fakta Mahkamah Sesyen – Tiada salah arah atau misappreciation of evidence – Rayuan ditolak, keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan, set-off diiktiraf, baki hutang disahkan. 1 Prosedur Sivil — Rayuan dari Mahkamah Sesyen ke Mahkamah Tinggi — Permohonan mengemukakan keterangan baharu — Aturan 55 Kaedah 7 dan Aturan 38 Kaedah 12 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Skop dan had kuasa Mahkamah Rayuan menerima keterangan tambahan — Sifat kuasa sebagai luar biasa dan restriktif — Prinsip finaliti litigasi. 1 Keterangan Baharu — Ujian penerimaan — Ladd v Marshall — Tiga syarat kumulatif: (i) ketekunan munasabah (due diligence); (ii) materialiti berpotensi mengubah keputusan; (iii) kebolehpercayaan — Kegagalan memenuhi mana-mana satu syarat adalah fatal — Beban pembuktian terletak pada pemohon — Keterangan yang diketahui atau boleh diperoleh semasa perbicaraan asal tidak layak diterima di peringkat rayuan. 1 Rayuan — Larangan “rehearing by instalment” — Rayuan bukan peluang kedua membina semula kes yang gagal — Percubaan memperkenalkan teori baharu selepas penghakiman — Ketidakbolehan menggunakan rayuan untuk memperbaiki kelemahan pembuktian di peringkat perbicaraan. 1 Budi Bicara Kehakiman — Pelaksanaan budi bicara menerima keterangan tambahan — Keperluan mematuhi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap — Tiada salah arah undang-undang — Tiada pertimbangan faktor tidak relevan — Tiada pengabaian faktor material — Keputusan dalam lingkungan budi bicara yang sah dan rasional. 1 Ketidakadilan Nyata (Miscarriage of Justice) — Ujian kewujudan keadaan luar biasa — Ketiadaan kecacatan prosedural atau penafian hak membela diri — Ketiadaan risiko ketidakadilan sekiranya permohonan ditolak — Prinsip kepastian dan ketertiban prosiding mengatasi kepentingan memperkenalkan keterangan lewat. 1 Semakan Terhadap Pelaksanaan Budi Bicara — Cabaran rayuan atas alasan salah arah dalam pelaksanaan budi bicara — Keperluan menunjukkan salah faham prinsip undang-undang, kegagalan mempertimbangkan faktor material, pertimbangan faktor tidak relevan atau keputusan yang jelas tidak munasabah — Ketiadaan asas untuk campur tangan. 1 Keputusan — Permohonan mengemukakan keterangan baharu ditolak — Kos dalam kausa — Rayuan utama diteruskan berdasarkan rekod rayuan sedia ada. 1 1. This is an appeal by the Appellant (“Defendant”) against the Sessions Court’s decision dated 24 September 2024 which allowed the Respondent’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for RM401,582.00, with interest and costs. 1 2. The Defendant appealed on the grounds that inadmissible documents were wrongly accepted. 1 3. Upon review, this Court finds that the documents were properly admitted under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 and that the Plaintiff had proven delivery and acceptance of goods. 1 4. There is no error warranting appellate intervention. 1 5. The appeal is dismissed with costs of RM6,000.00, subject to allocator. 1 1. Appeal by Defendant against Sessions Court judgment (RM248,166 total; two sums RM116,383.50 & RM131,782.50). 1 2. Issues: liability for fibre-optic damage; quantum, interest rate & interest period. 1 3. HMS found Defendant liable for cable damage; invoices unchallenged. 1 4. Appellate finding: liability upheld. 1 5. Appellate finding: quantum, 12% interest and interest commencement set aside for legal non-compliance and inadequate pleading. 1 6. Plaintiff ordered to amend pleadings within 14 days with specific breakdown of special damages and basis of interest. 1 7. Quantum/interest remitted to Sessions Court for rehearing before different judge. 1 8. Post-judgment interest to follow O.42 r.12 (Chief Justice rate - 5%) unless proven otherwise. 1 9. Costs in the cause; appeal allowed in part. 1 Bank–Purchaser Relationship; Redemption Sum; Discharge Of Charge; Prohibitory Order; National Land Code (NLC) ss 241 & 338; Implied Undertaking; Privity Of Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Solicitor’s Authority And Dual Representation; Sale And Purchase Transaction; Appellate Intervention; Costs. 1 • Plaintiff’s appeal on reinstatement cost (RM326,845.00) is dismissed - no actual work carried out and no notice given. • Defendant’s cross-appeal is dismissed - 8 months’ rental loss rightly allowed under Clause 4.3. • Water bill claim (RM948.35) is preserved. • The Court finds no reason to disturb the decision of the learned Session Court Judge. • Accordingly, both appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. • The decision of the trial Judge is affirmed. 1 Contract – Wrongful termination – Illegality not pleaded – Ex facie vs non-ex facie illegality – Order 18 r 8 ROC 2012 1 TORT: Kecuaian — Kerja pemasangan kabel kuasa melalui HDD — Paip gas rosak dan kebocoran gas — Kewajipan berjaga-jaga diakui saksi — Pelanggaran kewajipan: tidak mematuhi lukisan profil diluluskan; gagal mengekalkan jarak sekurang-kurangnya tiga meter; gagal mendedahkan semula paip apabila jarak kurang daripada tiga meter; kerja tanpa permit dan tanpa pengawasan Plaintif; subkontraktor tidak kompeten — Kaitan sebab-akibat dan kebolehramalan dibuktikan — Elemen kecuaian dipenuhi atas imbangan kebarangkalian. 1 UTILITI / KESELAMATAN GAS: Permit kerja harian dan keperluan pengawasan pemegang utiliti — Kegagalan memohon permit bagi 1 dan 2 Oktober 2020 — Pelanggaran syarat keselamatan kerja berhampiran paip gas bertekanan. 1 KETERANGAN: Kuantum kerugian dibuktikan melalui SP3 dan dokumen sokongan — Kos pembaikan, bahan, tenaga kerja, kenderaan dan kehilangan gas — Jumlah keseluruhan RM744,271.24 — Tiada sanggahan substantif oleh Defendan — Pengakuan tanggungjawab oleh Pengurus Projek Defendan. 1 PROSEDUR SIVIL: Beban pembuktian di bawah seksyen 101 dan 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 — Beban berpindah kepada Defendan setelah elemen dibuktikan — Defendan gagal menepis — Tuntutan terhadap pihak ketiga ditolak. 1 RAYUAN: Prinsip “plainly wrong test” — Tiada salah arah undang-undang atau kekhilafan fakta — Dapatan fakta Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan — Lim Peng Hock & Anor v Chuah Peng San & Anor [2021] CLJU 119; Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 CLJ 19; Goh Bak Ming v Yeoh Eng Kong & Ors [2019] 1 CLJ 461 diikuti. 1 Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya – Rayuan Sivil (Sale of Goods / Fraud / Stolen Goods / Counterclaim) Subjek: Kontrak jual beli – Goods sold and delivered – Integrated circuits (IC) – Tuntutan harga barang di bawah PO dan invois TP6355 – Defendan mendakwa IC yang dibekalkan adalah barang Defendan sendiri yang telah dicuri dari gudang dan dijual semula oleh Plaintif – Dakwaan fraudulent misrepresentation dan conspiracy to defraud – Isu pengakuan dalam pliding, penghantaran & penerimaan barang, rekod SAP, label barcode dan “peel marks” – Pembelian Plaintif daripada pembekal pihak ketiga (Shenzhen Gangrui) – Tuntutan balas dan exemplary damages – Prinsip campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan (plainly wrong test). 1 Civil appeal — Sale and purchase agreement — Liquidated agreed damages (LAD) — Delay in delivery of vacant possession — Force majeure — Delay by public authority (Tenaga Nasional Berhad) — Extension of time — Architect’s opinion and engineer’s certification — Contractual compliance — Parties bound by pleadings — No error of law or fact — Appeal dismissed — Decision affirmed — Costs to respondent 1 Rayuan Sivil – Prinsip campur tangan Mahkamah Tinggi – Keputusan hakim bicara hanya diganggu jika “plainly wrong” atau tiada pertimbangan kehakiman mencukupi. Kontrak – Pembekalan jentera berat – Invois dan tunggakan – Nota Debit diterima atas dasar protes – Tiada estoppel kerana Plaintif secara konsisten membantah pengiraan Defendan. Ringkasan Pembayaran 19.01.2019 – Dikeluarkan oleh Defendan, mengesahkan hutang tertunggak dan mengatasi Nota Debit – Tidak pernah dibatalkan. Keterangan – S.92 Akta Keterangan 1950 menghalang Defendan menolak terma dokumen bertulis – Tiada proviso terpakai. Rayuan ditolak dengan kos 1 Civil – Appeal against the decision of the Session Court Judge for dismissing the counter claim of the Appellant– whether the Session Court Judge erred in law by dismissing the counter claim due to the non-appearance of the Appellant’s solicitors– whether the refusal to grant an adjournment amounted to a breach of natural justice – whether appellate intervention is warranted – solicitors only filed discharge application three days before trial date 1 Appeal dismissed; no failure of consideration, IDD-17 carries no evidential weight, training bond and notice clause validly enforced and Sessions Court’s findings affirmed in full 1 Joint ownership • Purchase price • Pleadings • Unpleaded relief • Consideration • Co-borrower liability • Illegality • Burden of proof • Appeal allowed/dismissed 1 Undang-Undang Tanah — Pengambilan tanah — Masa pengambilan tanah — Sama ada tarikh pengambilan tanah adalah pada masa tanah berkenaan diwartakan di bawah seksyen 4 atau seksyen 8 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 —Sama ada rayuan Perayu terhadap pemberian pampasan boleh dilayan memandangkan tiada persoalan perundangan dibangkitkan oleh Perayu — Sama ada nilai pasaran tanah yang diawadkan oleh Pentadbir Tanah merupakan nilai pasaran yang munasabah dan teratur— Sama ada terdapat kesan mudarat dan kesan pecah pisah ke atas baki Lot 444 dan Lot 1188 1 Industrial Relations – S 33C Industrial Relations Act 1967 – dismissal of Managing Director – alleged redundancy and restructuring – requirement of concrete proof of genuine redundancy – influence of incoming shareholder (MMC) – recorded conversation – findings of fact of Industrial Court – whether plainly wrong – backwages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement – appeal dismissed 1 Prosedur Sivil — Prosiding komital — Dakwaan afidavit palsu — Finaliti litigasi — Res judicata — Penyalahgunaan proses — Sama ada isu yang telah diputuskan boleh dijadikan asas prosiding komital baharu — Tindakan pra-matang sementara rayuan belum diputuskan — A 18 k.19(1)(a), (b), (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Undang-undang Syarikat — Pengurusan Kehakiman (Judicial Management) — Skop moratorium di bawah s.410 Akta Syarikat 2016 — Sama ada moratorium menghalang prosiding komital — Perbezaan antara tindakan sivil dan bidang kuasa quasi-jenayah Mahkamah Keterangan Afidavit — Dakwaan keterangan palsu — Remedi yang betul — Sama ada prosiding komital adalah forum sesuai — Tindakan untuk mengetepikan perintah atas alasan penipuan terhadap Mahkamah. Pembatalan tindakan — Prinsip-prinsip — Kes yang terang dan nyata — Sama ada prosiding komital mendedahkan kausa tindakan — Sama ada bersifat remeh, menyusahkan atau menindas — Aturan 18 kaedah 19 — Rujukan: Bandar Builder; Suppuletchemi. Kos — Kos atas dasar indemniti — Syarat keadaan khas atau luar biasa — Tiada unsur mala fide — Penolakan permohonan indemniti — A 59 k.2, k.3 & k.16 KKM 2012 — Prinsip kos mengikut acara — Hanya kos biasa (party and party) dibenarkanPemulihan Korporat — Judicial Management — Niat perundangan — Rujukan Hansard Parlimen — Moratorium bertujuan memberi ruang pemulihan, bukan melindungi pihak daripada tindakan penghinaan Mahkamah. 1 Guaman — Kecuaian profesional — Firma guaman — Hubungan peguam–anak guam — Retainer — Kewajipan profesional — Kewajipan fidusiari — Pihak ketiga/benefisiari — Pergantungan (reliance) — Maklumat sulit — Dakwaan salah nyata dan penipuan — Standard pembuktian — Pertikaian fakta material — Saman Pemula — Keterangan melalui afidavit — Kesesuaian prosedur — Keperluan perbicaraan penuh — Kerugian — Kausaliti — Ganti rugi — Ganti rugi emosi — Kos perundangan sebagai ganti rugi khas — Prinsip pampasan (compensatory) — Perintah kos. 1 Prosedur Sivil-Pembatalan Tindakan (Striking Out)-Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a), (d) dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012-sama ada pernyataan tuntutan mendedahkan kausa tindakan munasabah-sama ada Plaintif mempunyai locus standi-tindakan wakil oleh persatuan -kegagalan mengemukakan minit AGM dan bukti pelantikan Pegawai Awam-Pegawai Awam di bawah S.9 (c) Akta Pertubuhan 1966-Cabaran terhadap keputusan eksekutif-Mod tindakan yang betul-semakan kehakiman berbanding tindakan writ- penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah-Had masa untukmemulakan semakan kehakiman (A.53 k.1)-bidang kuasa sedia ada (Inherent Jurisdiction)-Kuasa budi bicara untuk membatalkan pliding yang remeh, menyusahkan dan mengaibkan. 1 Plaintif-plaintif sebagai pegawai awam Persatuan Penjual-penjual Daging babi Johor ("Persatuan tersebut") telah memulakan tindakan terhadap Defendan Pertama (pengendali rumah sembelih) serta Defendan Kedua hingga keempat (pihak berkuasa awam yang mengawal selia operasi rumah sembelih) dengan memohon deklarasi bahawa caj tambahan sebanyak RM20 bagi setiap ekor bagi yang dikenakan adalah tidak sah, ultra vires dan menyalahi undang-undang. Plaintif juga memohon injuksi dan perintah bayaran balik sebanyak RM1,533,880.00 yang didakwa telah dipungut daripada ahli-ahli persatuan 1 Penghakiman Ingkar – Serahan Writ – Aturan 10 KKM 2012 – AR Registered Post – Ketiadaan Kad AR – Penyampaian Ganti – Serahan Tidak Sah – Irregular Judgment – Ex Debito Justitiae – Pembelaan Bermerit – Triable Issues – Audit Akaun – Prejudis – Kelewatan – Prinsip Undang-Undang Tatacara – Beban Pembuktian – Pengetahuan Alamat Sebenar – Standard Serahan Litigasi – Hak untuk Didengar – Keadilan Prosedural 1 Civil Procedure - Summary judgment - Order 14 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 - “Triable issue” - Late filing - Non-compliance with court directions - Affidavit in reply and written submissions filed on hearing date - Rejection/striking out - Defendant confined to oral submissions on point of law only - Discretion - Prejudice - Revenue Law / Income Tax - Recovery of tax as civil debt - Income Tax Act 1967 (Act 53) - ss 103, 106(1), 106(3), 142(1), 145(2)(c) - “Pay first, argue later” - Deemed service of notices of assessment - Certificate under s 142(1) as sufficient evidence - Court not to entertain plea that assessment excessive/incorrectly assessed - Remedy by appeal to Special Commissioners 1 Sivil – Permohonan membatalkan pliding – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Kuasa luar biasa Mahkamah – Ujian “plainly and obviously unsustainable” – Tuntutan yang remeh, menyusahkan dan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Strata – Badan Pengurusan Bersama (JMB) – Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 s 143(2) – Skop kuasa dan fungsi JMB – Pengurusan dan penyenggaraan harta bersama (common property) – Sama ada JMB mempunyai locus standi untuk mendakwa pemaju berasaskan perjanjian jual beli individu dan representasi pra-kontrak – JMB mempunyai personaliti undang-undang tetapi tiada hak substantif dalam SPA antara pemaju dan pembeli individu. Kontrak – Privity of contract – Perjanjian jual beli (SPA) antara pemaju dan pembeli individu – Hak kontraktual hanya pada pihak-pihak SPA – JMB bukan pihak kontrak – Dakwaan salah nyata dan pelanggaran kontrak terhadap pemaju berhubung urus niaga jualan unit – Sama ada “injury to the body corporate” atau “injury to the purchasers personally”. Misrepresentation – Brosur, risalah dan laman sesawang projek perumahan – Kenyataan promosi dan bahasa pemasaran – “Mere puff” dan “invitation to treat” – Sama ada boleh membentuk kausa tindakan misrepresentation / fraudulent misrepresentation / negligent misstatement – Elemen tort: duty of care, reliance, damage – Tiada reliance oleh JMB yang belum wujud ketika representasi dibuat – Representasi kepada pembeli individu, bukan kepada JMB.Striking out – Pleading Plaintif berasaskan salah nyata dan pelanggaran SPA – Tuntutan bagi pihak pembeli individu melalui JMB – Ketiadaan kausa tindakan yang munasabah – Tuntutan tidak bersumber daripada hak JMB di bawah Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 – Perenggan 4, 27–33 dan 39.2 tidak mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang sah – Sesuai dibatalkan di bawah A.18 r.19(1)(a) dan (b) KKM 2012. Penyalahgunaan proses – JMB cuba mengitar semula pertikaian individu pembeli terhadap pemaju melalui tindakan korporat – Tuntutan tanpa hak undang-undang yang jelas (legal interest) – Usaha memanjangkan tanggungan pemaju melebihi tempoh dan skop yang dipersetujui dalam SPA – Abuse of process di bawah A.18 r.19(1)(d) KKM 2012. Remedi – Permohonan Defendan dibenarkan – Perenggan 4, 27–33 dan 39.2 Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda dibatalkan – Tuntutan Plaintif setakat bahagian tersebut diketepikan – Kos RM5,000 kepada Defendan. 1 Housing Development — Defects — Vacant Possession — Certificate of Completion and Compliance — Electrical Defects — Breach of Contract — Sale and Purchase Agreement — Clause 13 — Clause 23 — Clause 25 — Rectification — Reasonable Refusal — Duty to Mitigate — Liquidated Ascertained Damages — Repair Costs — Loss of Use — Distress and Inconvenience — Negligence — Concurrent Liability — Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 1 1. Plaintiffs satisfied Order 14 prerequisites. 1 2. Prima facie infringement of CARAMAY trademark proven. 1 3. Defendant failed to raise any genuine triable issue. 1 4. Summary judgment granted. 1 5. Final injunction issued. 1 6. Delivery up / destruction of infringing goods ordered. 1 7. Disclosure of supplier details within 14 days. 1 8. Inquiry on damages (or account of profits). 1 9. Costs RM7,000 to Plaintiffs. 1 Amended Writ and SOC-after filing of SOD- change of capacity- new cause of action-striking out partially 1 Perbankan dan Kewangan — Surat Jaminan — Jaminan “atas permintaan” (“on demand guarantee”) — Sama ada pemiutang perlu terlebih dahulu menggunakan segala remedi terhadap penghutang utama — Sama ada tanggungan penjamin timbul serta-merta apabila tuntutan dibuat — Tafsiran Klausa 6(i), 7 dan 7A Surat Jaminan — Sama ada tanggungan penjamin adalah bebas daripada tanggungan penghutang utama — Sama ada kegagalan menjual atau melupuskan harta cagaran menyebabkan tuntutan menjadi pramatang — Kesan prosiding penggulungan terhadap penghutang utama — Perbezaan antara keperluan “exhaustion of remedies” di bawah seksyen 5(4) Akta Insolvensi 1967 dengan tuntutan sivil di bawah Surat Jaminan — Penghakiman Terus — Sama ada wujud isu untuk dibicarakan — Prinsip di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Sama ada pembelaan menimbulkan isu bona fide untuk perbicaraan — Penghakiman Terus diberikan kepada Plaintif — Kos. 1 Tatacara Sivil – Penzahiran dokumen – Penzahiran terhadap pihak ketiga – Aturan 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Relevan dan keperluan – Milikan, jagaan atau kuasa dokumen – Permohonan lewat – Pengurusan kes – PTCM – Common Bundle of Documents – Fishing expedition – Permohonan menindas – Budi bicara Mahkamah – Kos dalam kausa. 1 Rayuan oleh Defendan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini pada 30 September 2025 yang telah membenarkan Permohonan Plaintif (Lampiran 9) (permohonan tersebut) untuk memasukkan Penghakiman terhadap Defendan selaras dengan Aturan 14 Kaedah 1, Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012) dan juga kos berjumlah RM5000.00 tertakluk kepada fi alokatur hendaklah dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif. 1 Mahkamah dengan ini membenarkan permohonan Plaintif untuk memasukkan Penghakiman Terus terhadap Defendan dan kos sebanyak RM3000.00. 1 interlocutary application. Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. Writ and Statement of Claim. Individual share trade account. Euro Shares. Euro Holdings Berhad shares.Contra transaction. Rabiah bt Ani v Samsi bin Hj Hasim (t/a Syarikat Perniagaan Jaya) & Anor (2011) 7 MLJ 225. Abdol Mulok bin Awang Damit v Perdana Industri Holdings Bhd (2003). Fraud allegation. Triable issues. 1 withdrawal of amended defence and counter-claim by defendant-plaintif objected but applied to strike out-whether suitable towards cost 1 application to consolidate and transfer- purpose of the application-inconsistent with defence and counter-claim of conspiracy to defraud 1 Prosedur Sivil — Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1)(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Permohonan membatalkan tindakan — Ketiadaan kausa tindakan munasabah — Dakwaan penipuan — Keperluan pleading yang khusus dan terperinci — Seksyen 540 Akta Syarikat 2016 — Penyingkapan tirai korporat — Entiti perundangan berasingan — Liabiliti peribadi pengarah — Pleading bersifat umum dan kesimpulan undang-undang — Isu perbicaraan tidak timbul — Penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah — Tindakan terhadap defendan dibatalkan — Permohonan dibenarkan — Kos dalam kausa 1 Default Judgment; Set Aside; Regular Judgment; Service by Registered Post; Limitation – Payable on Demand; Shareholders’ Advance; Bare Denial; Stay of Execution; Special Circumstances; Kosma Palm Oil; WSS Auction Completed; Conditional Stay Non-Compliance 1 Lot 4004, Geran 98520, Mukim Jeram Batu, Pontian, Johor, HS(D) 13674 & HS(D) 13675, Supplemental SPA (1991), Irrevocable Power of Attorney (1991/1993), Memorandum of Understanding (1991) , Private caveat lodged (2018), Civil Law Act 1956, Iftikar Ahmed Khan v Perwira Affin Bank Bhd [2018] 1 CLJ 415 (Federal Court), Section 65 (1) Evidence Act 1950, Section 11 (1) Specific Relief Act 1950, Wong Kup Sing v Jeram Rubber Estates Ltd [1969] 1 MLJ 245, Cheah Kim Tong & Anor v Taro Kaur [1989] 1 CLJ REP 378 1 1. Plaintiffs dan 1st Defendant selaku pemberi pinjaman memeterai perjanjian pinjaman bertarikh 18.6.2013 dengan D6 sebagai peminjam, manakala D1, D2, D4 & D5 sebagai penjamin. 1 2. Jumlah sebenar yang dipinjam kepada D6 ialah RM3,000,000.00 (P1: RM1,031,250.00; P2: RM1,031,250.00; P3: RM937,500.00). 1 3. Mahkamah memutuskan D1 & D2 bertanggungjawab bersama & berasingan membayar jumlah ini kepada Plaintiffs dengan faedah 8% dari 22.01.2020 hingga 28.03.2025 dan 5% sehingga selesai. 1 4. Counter-claim dibenarkan terhadap D4 & D5 untuk RM750,000.00 beserta indemniti kerugian dan kos RM20,000.00. 1 5. Tuntutan terhadap D6 (counter-claim) ditolak dengan kos RM15,000.00. 1 misrepresentation in brochure for sale of unit house-non completion of common facilities Roof Top Garden as per brochure-late delivery of vacant possession- electricity not ready for connection-swimming pool unable to be tested for safe use 1 Order 81 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 - sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) - HS(D) 586780 PTD 231142 - Shop Unit - HS(D) 552476 PTD 187633 - Diong Tieow Hong & Anor v. Amalan Tepat Sdn Bhd [2008] 3 MLJ 411 - Kenanga Investors Berhad v. Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] MLRHU 431- Loh Tina & Ors v. Kemuning Setia Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2020] 6 MLJ 191- deliver or cause to be delivered - Under the National Land Code 1965 - Certificate of Completion and Compliance - 1 Prosiding sivil — Permohonan meminda Penyata Tuntutan — Aturan 20 kaedah 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Pindaan pliding pada mana-mana peringkat prosiding — Budi bicara Mahkamah — Penentuan isu sebenar pertikaian — Sama ada pindaan mengubah sifat asas tuntutan — Dakwaan fraud — Keperluan pliding khusus — “Prospective creditor” — Sama ada memperkenalkan kausa tindakan baharu — Prejudis kepada Defendan — Prejudis boleh diperbetulkan melalui kos — Kelewatan — Kelewatan tidak bersifat fatal — Kepentingan keadilan substantif — Permohonan dibenarkan — Kos dalam kausa. 1 • Civil procedure – Late filing – Written submissions – Non-compliance with court directions – Reply submissions filed out of time without leave – Rejected. • Conveyancing – Stakeholder solicitor – Appointment inferred from course of dealings – No formal acceptance not fatal. • Evidence – Bank statements – Admissibility – Subpoenaed bank witnesses – Weight vs admissibility – Admitted. • Stakeholder monies – Receipt into client account – Failure to remit matured sums – Breach established. • Partnership – Law firm – Branch autonomy – No notice to third party – Partners jointly and severally liable. • Quantum – RM1,439,022.89 proven after set-off – No proof of fixed deposit profit/hibah. • Interest – Pre- and post-judgment interest at 5% per annum – Costs awarded. 1 Guaman sivil – Permohonan membatalkan tindakan – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Limb teras – Tindakan tidak menzahirkan kausa tindakan munasabah – Ujian “plain and obvious” dan “plainly and obviously unsustainable” – Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 – Prinsip landmark strike out – Andaian fakta plaintif diambil benar tetapi gagal dari segi undang-undang – Perbicaraan tidak boleh digunakan untuk mencipta hak undang-undang yang tidak wujud – Elakan perbicaraan sia-sia 1 Kontrak – Privity of contract – Option to Purchase (OTP) hanya ditandatangani oleh Defendan Pertama – Defendan Kedua bukan pihak penandatangan – Tiada kontrak yang mengikat Defendan Kedua – Pelaksanaan khusus – Ketidakbolehan memaksa pemilik bersama (co-owner) memindahkan bahagian tak terbahagi tanpa asas kontrak 1 Agensi – Actual authority dan apparent authority – Keperluan representasi oleh prinsipal – Dakwaan persetujuan lisan dan mandat – Kegagalan memlead fakta material – Hubungan kekeluargaan dan pemilikan bersama tidak mewujudkan agensi – Inferens dan andaian tidak mencukupi 1 Prosedur sivil – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(2) KKM 2012 – Larangan penerimaan keterangan bagi permohonan di bawah limb (a) – Afidavit orang tengah/broker – Kedudukan kebolehterimaan – Walaupun diambil “at its highest”, tidak mengatasi kecacatan undang-undang asas – “Triable issues” yang bersifat periferi dan tidak menentukan 1 Penyalahgunaan proses – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) dan (d) – Limb sokongan – Percubaan mengekalkan tindakan terhadap pihak tanpa asas kontraktual – Overreaching terhadap pemilik bersama – Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 KKM 2012 – Bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah 1 Keputusan – Permohonan Defendan Kedua dibenarkan – Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan dibatalkan setakat terhadap Defendan Kedua sahaja – Tindakan terhadap Defendan Pertama diteruskan – Kos RM3,000.00 kepada Defendan Kedua. 1 Validity of a will- purpose of law-customary marriage whether proven- proof by oral and documentary evidence 1 1. This is the Plaintiffs’ claim for a declaration that the charge (Presentation No. 75625/2018) registered by the Defendant over their property is null and void. 1 2. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs had fully paid the purchase price and obtained vacant possession prior to the charge. 1 3. The Developer, having become a bare trustee, had no authority to execute the charge. 1 4. The Defendant, as an immediate chargee, cannot rely on the protection of section 340(3) NLC. 1 5. Accordingly, the charge is defeasible under section 340(2)(b) NLC. 1 6. The Plaintiffs’ claim is allowed with costs of RM50,000. 1 membatalkan Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Plaintif di bawah Aturan 18, Kaedah 19(1)(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 meminda Pernyataan Tuntutan di bawah Aturan 20 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 membatalkan Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Plaintif di bawah A.18, k.19(1)(a),(b) dan (d) KKM kes Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor [2016] 3 CLJ 1 subperenggan (b) A.18, k.19(1) KKM, “Facilitation Cost”, “Scheduled Nett Service Receipt by Agent” dan “Schedule Nett Service Fee Receipt by TPT which shall be 7% of the Scheduled Nett Service Receipt by Agent” 1 Prosiding Pihak Ketiga – Aturan 16 Kaedah 5 KKM 2012 – Kegagalan Pihak Keempat memfailkan pembelaan – Sama ada Mahkamah boleh memaksa Pihak Keempat memfailkan pembelaan – Remedi yang sesuai di bawah A.16 k.5 (penghakiman ingkar) – Prosiding pihak ketiga adalah bebas daripada tindakan utama – Objektif utama di bawah A.34 k.1(1) KKM 2012 – Permohonan Pihak Ketiga ditolak tanpa kos. 1 Civil Procedure — Case Management — Whether the Court can allow the Respondent’s claim due to the failure of the Appellant to comply with directives including filing pre-trial documents by deadline — Order 34 Rule 2(3) and (4) of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Intestate estate — Contested grant — Conversion of originating summons to writ under O.72 Rules of Court 2012 — Whether disputed assets form part of estate — Land transferred to son’s nominee — Misrepresentation and illusory consideration — s.340 National Land Code — Immediate transferee not indefeasible — Resulting trust — Fiduciary breach — Personal liability to account 1 1. Application to strike out parts of Defence/Counterclaim under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012. 1 2. Disputed averments: irrelevant, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial to fair trial. 1 3. Parties are family; dispute involves estate, LA, distribution order, property transfers. 1 4. Court accepts some averments as relevant (contribution, estoppel, estate background). 1 5. Strikes out irrelevant/scandalous paragraphs: family disputes, personal issues, post-death matters, res judicata issues. 1 6. Other paragraphs retained for trial (contributions, proprietary estoppel, expenses, counterclaims). 1 7. Application allowed in part. 1 8. Paras struck out: 22–29, 38–42, 44, 78, 94, 104, 106, 115(g),(i),(l). 1 9. Costs RM5,000; rejoinder filed without leave struck out. 1 unless order reminder-extension granted first with reasons-subsequent failure to file despite extension and deadline-unless order invoked 1 Notis Permohonan Defendan Pertama. A.20, k.11 dan A.92, k.4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Technochase Sdn Bhd. Penghakiman Terpinda. res judicata. Serac Asia Sdn Bhd v Sepakat Insurance Brokers Sdn Bhd (2013) 5 MLRA 175. 1 • 1st Defendant’s scope based on Main Contract (Cl. A(1)) • Must comply with instructions from Plaintiff/JKR (Cl. A(3)) • Main Contract terms apply on back-to-back basis (Cl. C(3)) • Contract duration: 18.3.2014 - 14.3.2016 (Cl. D) • Plaintiff may terminate by written notice (Cl. N(14)) • Defendant must prove facts put to Plaintiff’s witnesses • Failure to adduce evidence = deemed acceptance of witness’s testimony • Referenced case: Muhamad Qamarul v Md Nor [2020] MLJU 106 • Principle supported by Mahadev Shankar’s article on cross-examination • Plaintiff’s claim dismissed for lack of convincing proof 1 Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 (1)(a) dan/atau (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (“KKM”), Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor [2016] 3 CLJ 1; Tan Wai Hong & ORs v Malaysian Airlines System Berhad & Ors [2017] 4 MLJ 540, Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 4 CLJ 1,seksyen 218(2) CMSA, Empire Holdings Ltd v Ithmaar Development Co Ltd & Ors [2025] 1 MLJ 192, Lai Soon Onn v Chew Fei Meng [2019] 2 MLJ 96, 1 Transfer of proceedings – Application under O.57 r.1 ROC 2012 and para 12, Schedule to Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Transfer from Johor Bahru High Court to Kuala Lumpur High Court – Whether actions arose from same transaction and factual matrix – Whether overlap of facts and quantum sufficient – Whether transfer “expedient for the ends of justice” – Discretion to transfer to be exercised sparingly 1 Contract — Joint venture — Joint venture agreement — Frustration — Contracts Act 1950 s 57(2) — Whether contract frustrated — Whether frustration self-induced — Risk allocation — Evidence — Expert evidence — Evidence Act 1950 s 45 — Adverse inference — Evidence Act 1950 s 114(g) 1 PROSEDUR SIVIL: Permohonan striking out di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Kausa tindakan tidak munasabah, remeh, menyusahkan dan penyalahgunaan proses — Prinsip dalam Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 4 CLJ 7 dirujuk — Mahkamah hanya akan menggunakan kuasa ini dalam kes yang jelas dan nyata (plain and obvious cases). 1 AMANAH / TRUST: Dakwaan amanah ke atas tanah gagal dibuktikan — Tiada bukti bertulis, tiada endosmen “trustee”, dan tiada pendaftaran amanah di bawah s.344 Kanun Tanah Negara — Tiada tindakan atau kaveat selama lebih dua dekad selepas pindah milik — Prinsip Low Tin Yong @ Low Yong Lian v Low Yong Thua [2016] 5 MLRA 398 terpakai — Hakmilik Defendan tidak boleh disangkal (indefeasible title). 1 HAD MASA: Tuntutan pemulangan tanah luput masa di bawah s.9(1) Akta Had Masa 1953 — Tempoh 12 tahun bermula dari tarikh pindah milik — Credit Corp (M) Bhd v Fong Tok Sin [1991] 1 MLJ 409 diaplikasikan. 1 KEPUTUSAN: Permohonan striking out dibenarkan; Writ dan Penyataan Tuntutan dibatalkan; kos RM5,000 kepada Defendan. 1 rumah atas tanah-pertikaian hakmilik- pemberian oleh ahli keluarga sama ada secara amanah-tanah berpaya dan pembinaan rumah atasnya tanpa bantahan-akaun berkanun Defendan-sama ada ekuiti dan doktrin of laches terpakai 1 Accordingly, the Court finds the Plaintiff has proven its case, and the claim for total loss with interest is allowed as pleaded. 1 Reference is made to Mahadev Shankar J’s article “Putting and Suggesting in Cross-Examination” (January 1984 MLJ xi). 1 The absence of relevant witnesses, including Simon Lim, renders the letter as documentary hearsay (see: Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Haji Abd Razak v PP [2022] 1 CLJ 491 (COA)). 1 The document was not verified by Yee Teck Wai or any TM legal representative. 1 Its contents are inadmissible as proof under Part C of the CBODs. 1 Interlocutory injunction; corporate governance; unilateral director action; disputed share allotment; res judicata; s.54(a) Specific Relief Act; internal management; ultra vires acts; preservation of status quo. 1 Tort - professional negligence suit commenced by a bank against a property/estate valuer for overvaluing a property resulting a loss to the bank 1 Malaysian Valuation Standards – MVA does not discriminate or distinguish the nature of the transaction - as long as it is a registered transaction on the subject property, it must be stated and disclosed in the valuation - the “registered transactions” in the MVS refers to all transactions registered on the title of the property by the land registry - the auction price of the subject property must be included in the valuation report to reflect the true market value of the property at that particular time - all details such as prices and encumbrances must be stated and disclosed clearly in the valuation report - it is not sufficient to just exhibit a title search and leave it to the reader to discern for himself - the annexture to the Valuation Report is clearly not the 5th Defendant’s statement or professional opinion but merely data from an external source 1 Comparable sales - being a competent and prudent valuer, it is incumbent upon the 5th Defendant not only to disclose all registered transactions involving the subject property and comparables but to explain and analyse in great detail their price and value trending - this will enable the reader, the Plaintiff in this case to make a pivotal informed decision whether to proceed or not with the Loan transaction or to seek another formal opinion from another valuer 1 Quantum of damages - the “but-for” test of causation must be satisfied for the claim for damages to succeed - whether the damages claimed by the Plaintiff would have occurred "but-for" the negligence or breach of duty of care by the 5th Defendant - the Plaintiff failed to prove that the 5th Defendant’s breach of the duty of care was the main or direct factor causing the loss suffered by the Plaintiff - the Plaintiff also failed to justify why the 5th Defendant is liable to pay the shortfall of the Loan as the Plaintiff still has the chance to recover it from Tai Hock Seng through a separate legal action - it is blatantly unfair to put the entire blame on the 5th Defendant and order the valuer alone to bear the balance outstanding - the Loan was for Tai Hock Seng’s own benefit and he had breached the Loan contract - the only mistake of the 5th Defendant was the valuer overvalued the Property and it is gravely unjust for the valuer be punished with the order to pay the entire shortfall. 1 Summary judgment – Application under O.14 r.1 ROC 2012 – Whether proceedings ought to be commenced under O.81 ROC 2012 for specific performance or rescission – Whether defendant raised any bona fide triable issue - Contract – Sale and purchase of property – Failure to complete construction and deliver vacant possession within stipulated period – Privity of contract – Effect of Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Act 2020 – Statutory exclusion of time – Progressive payments – Corporate restructuring and “new management” – Whether SPA lawfully terminated – Refund of purchase price and legal fees 1 Probate – Validity of Will – Suspicious circumstances – Thumbprint execution – Knowledge and consent disputed – Will in English – testator Tamil – speaking – Attesting witness signed separate page – Material witness not called – Adverse inferences 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 – Evidential burden shifted and not discharged – Impugned Will declared null and void – Grant of Probate revoked – Costs awarded 1 Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 (1)(a), (b) dan atau (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, Bukit Pedoman Sdn Bhd. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor [2016] 3 CLJ 1, perjanjian jual beli, balasan kerja sub kontraktor, 40 unit bangunan, Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad [1995] 4 CLJ 283,Seksyen 25 (2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 1 Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of the High Court — Forum non-convenience — Singaporean Plaintiff commencing claim in tort against the Malaysian Defendant in Malaysia court — whether Malaysia Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Singaporean Plaintiff’s claim arising from a road accident that occurred in Singapore — whether Malaysia Court is the appropriate forum— whether the Singaporean Plaintiff has established entitlement to the reliefs sought 1 Injunksi – Injunksi Interlokutori – Injunksi Mandatori – Declaratory Relief – Relief Interim vs Relief Muktamad – American Cyanamid Test – Mandatory Injunction Threshold – Real and Present Danger – Clean Hands Doctrine – Fire Access / Fire Engine Access – Strata Management Act 2013 – Building By-Laws – Akta Perkhidmatan Bomba 1988 – Undang-Undang Kecil Bangunan Seragam 1984 – Deed of Covenant – Pemotongan Utiliti – Kuasa Pendaftar Hakmilik – Registrar’s Caveat – ss.319–321 Kanun Tanah Negara – Prosedur Kaveat – Bidang Kuasa Eksklusif Jabatan Bomba – Campur Tangan Mahkamah dalam Fungsi Eksekutif – Disputed Facts – Afidavit Evidence – Balance of Convenience – Ganti Rugi Mencukupi – Permohonan Pra-Matang – Tindakan Komersial – Penyalahgunaan Proses – Kos Dalam Kausa. 1 Prosiding sivil — Penghakiman Ingkar Pembelaan — Permohonan untuk mengetepikan — Aturan 19 Kaedah 9 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Budi bicara Mahkamah — Faktor kumulatif — Alasan munasabah atas kelewatan — Kegagalan mematuhi arahan Mahkamah Penghakiman Ingkar Pembelaan — Defence on the merits — Triable issue — Penafian kosong (bare denials) — Kewajipan mengemukakan pembelaan bermerit — Universiti Sains Malaysia v Ku Zilati bt Ku Shaari & Ors [2023] 8 MLJ 270 — Lai Yoke Ngan & Anor v Chin Teck Kwee & Anor [1997] 2 MLJ 565 (FC) Prosiding Mahkamah — Kelewatan memfailkan permohonan — Keperluan bertindak dengan segera — Ketiadaan bona fide — Kelewatan hampir tiga bulan — Faktor menolak pelaksanaan budi bicara Prejudis kepada Plaintif — Penghakiman diperoleh secara teratur — Kepastian undang-undang — Ketidakadilan kepada pihak yang patuh kepada peraturan — Kos dan masa litigasi — Prinsip keadilan prosedural Keputusan — Permohonan Defendan-Defendan untuk mengetepikan Penghakiman Ingkar Pembelaan — Ditolak — Kos RM3,000.00 kepada Plaintif 1 1. The Court has before it five applications including Mareva Injunction and Anton Piller Order. 1 2. Having considered all submissions, the Court finds the Plaintiffs established a good arguable and prima facie case of misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty. 1 3. There is evidence of risk of asset dissipation and possible destruction of relevant documents. 1 4. The Plaintiffs’ standing is provisionally accepted at this interlocutory stage on grounds of necessity due to deadlock. 1 5. The Mareva Injunction and Anton Piller Order are therefore maintained pending full trial. 1 6. Defendant’s applications to set aside and for stay are dismissed. 1 7. Costs are to follow the cause. 1 recovery of payment for goods sold and delivered they have at the request of the Defendants supplied seafood seafood would be cash on delivery D2, D3 and D4 denied any indebtedness to P’s and that any amount due and owing would be D1’s responsibility. Lai Fee & Anor v Wong Yu Vee & Ors [2023] 4 CLJ 1 Ong Leong Chiou & Anor v Keller (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 4 CLJ 821 fraud and avoidance of legal obligations 1 Tatacara Sivil — Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Permohonan membatalkan writ dan pernyataan tuntutan — Limb (a) tiada kausa tindakan munasabah (asas utama) — Had masa — Seksyen 6 Akta Had Masa 1953 — Tuntutan jelas terhalang had masa — Limb (d) penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah (asas kumulatif) — Illegality — Moneylenders Act 1951 — Pinjaman tanpa lesen — Takrif “interest” — Substans mengatasi label — Privity kontrak — Locus standi — Penamatan awal tindakan — Kos. 1 Interlocutory injunction, mirror injunction, status quo, company management dispute, shareholders dispute, directors dispute, construction materials company, Order 41 rule 3, Order 41 rule 4, defective jurat, illiterate deponent, affidavit irregularity, interpreter verification, preservation of business operations, balance of convenience, adequacy of damages, ex parte injunction, inter partes hearing 1 Civil Procedure — Interim injunction — Order 29 rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 — Harassment, intimidation and defamation — Tort of harassment — Persistent and oppressive conduct — Threats to disseminate intimate images — Social media publications — WhatsApp and Instagram Threads — Serious question to be tried — Adequacy of damages — Balance of convenience — Preventive and protective relief — Equitable considerations — Undertaking as to damages — Injunction allowed in part — Costs in the cause 1 Defamation – Publication – Online messaging platforms – Telegram groups – Identity of publisher – Whether Plaintiffs proved that Telegram account belonged to Defendant – Section 114A Evidence Act 1950 – Rebuttable presumption as to online publisher – Absence of service-provider confirmation – Burden of proof on plaintiff – Default judgment set aside – Takaful agency – Alleged withholding of commission – Second set of words by other users – Special damages – Causation and proof of loss – Claim dismissed 1 1. The Plaintiff proved that the Defendants published defamatory Facebook and WhatsApp statements in February 2020 implying she was unqualified, negligent and caused injury during acupuncture. 2. The statements were defamatory, referred to the Plaintiff and were published to third parties. 3. The Defendants failed to establish justification, fair comment or qualified privilege. 4. Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff. 5. Damages and injunction to be assessed upon submissions on quantum. 6. Counterclaim is dismissed with costs. 1 Undang-undang Pembinaan — CIPAA 2012 — Seksyen 30 Bayaran Terus — Syarat Ambang (Threshold Requirement) Seksyen 30(5) — Maksud “Jumlah Terhutang atau Perlu Dibayar” — Ketiadaan Asas Hak Pembayaran kepada Kontraktor Utama — Penamatan Kontrak Induk — Akaun Akhir Tidak Dimuktamadkan — Pertikaian Bona Fide Tidak Menggantikan Keperluan s.30(5) — Beban Pembuktian Awal di Pihak Pemohon — Keputusan Adjudikasi Tidak Mengikat Prinsipal — Penggulungan Kontraktor Utama — Aplikasi Prinsip JDI Builtech, Kinu Sdn Bhd dan CT Indah — Tindakan Mendahului Pemiutang Tidak Dibenarkan — Permohonan Saman Pemula Ditolak. 1 penggantungan dan/ atau penangguhan Prosiding Pelaksanaan dan Saman Pemula, S.254 Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN),Aturan 15 Kaedah 6 KKM 2012, Hong Leong Bank Berhad v Staghorn Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals, Pegang Mining Company Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52, Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi Ahmad & Anor [2024] 10 CLJ 501, kaveat PC 2013, Re Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd; Ling Beng Sung v Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd & Ors (No 2) [1976] 1 MLJ 131 1 s.256 Kanun Tanah Negara (“KTN”) dan A.83 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (“KMK”), Notis Tuntutan dan Notis 16D, Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Berhad [1997] 2 CLJ 36, ms 37, perenggan 3, notis tuntutan hutang, Malayan Banking Berhad v Skycon Development Sdn Bhd [2014] 1 LNS 429, s.254(1) KTN, 1 1. Plaintiff Originating Summons: challenge Statutory Demand (19 April 2025). 1 2. Relief: Declaration invalid, Fortuna injunction, consequential orders. 1 3. Interim injunction granted (21 September 2025). 1 4. Defendant (Emerald Unity) claims via Vesting Order (6 January 2023). 1 5. Bona fide dispute: Defendant lacks locus standi to enforce Consent Judgment. 1 6. Fortuna principles: winding-up petition abusive if debt genuinely disputed. 1 7. Findings: Statutory Demand invalid; serious bona fide dispute; oppressive if petition allowed. 1 8. Orders: Statutory Demand invalid; injunction restrains winding-up petition; costs RM8,000.00. 1 9. Plaintiff to file setting aside application within 14 days. 1 Order 18, Rule19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) OS is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious have two (2) other suits between them Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor [2016] 3 CLJ 1 Tan Wai Hong & ORs v Malaysian Airlines System Berhad & Ors [2017] 4 MLJ 540 Order 18 Rule 19(1) ROC 2012 ‘abuse of court process’ Section 347 CA 2016 Section 311 CA 2016 lack of purpose behind the filing of this OS 1 1. The Defendant’s application is dismissed. 1 2. The principal issue is whether the Moneylending Agreement is enforceable under s.16(1) of the Moneylenders Act 1951. 1 3. The loan was disbursed before a duly stamped copy was delivered to the Plaintiff, contrary to the mandatory requirement of s.16(1). 1 4. Applying Powernet Industries, estoppel or waiver cannot cure statutory non-compliance, and equity cannot override Parliament’s command. 1 5. The Agreement is unenforceable; accordingly, the charge and lien holder’s caveat cannot stand. 1 6. Orders: Agreement declared void; charge set aside; caveat removed; costs to the Plaintiff. 1 Pre-action discovery – Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 – Sections 347 & 348 Companies Act 2016 – Minority shareholder – Derivative proceedings – Bona fide cause of action – Fishing expedition – Necessity and relevance – Collateral purpose – Confidential information – Corporate governance – Discovery refused. 1 Company Law — Minority Oppression — Section 346 Companies Act 2016 — Quasi — Partnership — Company Operated On Basis Of Mutual Trust And Informal Arrangements For Over Three Decades — Equal Shareholding Of 25% Each — Whether Legitimate Expectations Arose Beyond Strict Legal Rights 1 Duit setem-sama ada harta kediaman di bawah syarat nyata 'service apartment' layak kepada pengecualian-akuan berkanun dan Perintah Pengecualian Akta Setem 1 Co-ownership – Sections 145 & 417 National Land Code 1965 – High Court powers – Termination of co-proprietorship – Forced transfer of ½ share – WhatsApp communications – Incomplete sale agreement – Section 10(1) Contracts Act 1950 – Unjust enrichment – Clean hands – Registered title and indefeasibility – Counterclaim – Burden of proof – Costs. 1 Pemilikan benefisial hartanah – Usahasama pembangunan dan serah hak (assignment) – Pemaju sebagai pemilik benefisial – Tuan tanah berdaftar sebagai pemegang amanah (trustee nominal) – Locus standi pemilik benefisial untuk tindakan deklarasi dan injunksi – Lot Bumiputera dan sekatan kepentingan kepada bukan Bumiputera – Ketidakabsahan urus niaga jual beli bercanggah sekatan Bumiputera – Tiada perjanjian jual beli sah dengan Defendan – Dakwaan bayaran kepada pihak ketiga tidak beri hak terhadap Plaintif – Afidavit pihak ketiga (Darwin Paidathally) – hearsay dan tidak relevan – Afidavit saksi bukan pihak diketepikan – Tuntutan Defendan sebagai penceroboh tanpa hak (trespasser) – Injunksi kekal menghalang pencerobohan dan gangguan – Saman Pemula Plaintif dibenarkan dengan kos. 1 GRN 52481, Lot 198, Mukim Sungai Tiram, District of Johor Bahru, Johor, s.323 of the National Land Code, removal of private caveat, Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1979] 2 MLJ 212, Wong Kuan Tan v Gambut Development Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 113, 1 Land Law – Appeals and remedies – Alienation of plots of land to the Appellant with express conditions – Land administrator issued statutory Form 7A and 7B notices to remedy alleged breach of condition – Appeal to set aside statutory forms under section 418 National Land Code – Form 7A notices specified action required for remedying breach – Whether the issuance of the Form 7A Notices were pre-mature in light of the ongoing planning and conversion applications – Whether the Respondents acted irrationally and unreasonably in enforcing section 128 of Act 828 – Whether the Respondents exercised their statutory powers in bad faith or for an improper purpose. 1 Land Laws—National Land Code—Termination of Co- Proprietorship —Whether the Property be sold immediately or within one (1) year period at a price not less than RM1,400,000.00 as expressly prayed by the Applicant —whether the Court can direct the Applicant to sell her 50% interest in the Property to the Respondent at a fixed price of RM700,000.00 or sell it at the open market at a price not less than RM1,400,000.00. 1 Seksyen 8 (1)(b) Akta Insolvensi 1967 Seksyen 60 Akta Insolvensi 1967 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 di mana House of Lords di muka 708 Ng Hoo Kui v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 3/10 daripada ½ bahagian hartanah tersebut dipegang D1 atas dasar amanah kepada P P dan D1 tinggal bersama di atas hartanah tersebut Resulting Trust atau Constructing trust 1 • Plaintiff applied via Enclosure 1 to cancel Defendant’s private caveat on Lot 92758 Mukim Kulai. • Defendant (ex-husband) claimed property as matrimonial asset with caveatable interest. • Plaintiff argued no such interest under s.323 NLC. • Court held matrimonial claim falls under Syariah Court and caveat protects status quo. • Decision : Plaintiff’s application dismissed, caveat maintained. 1 Prosedur Sivil — Pencelahan — Kepentingan undang-undang sebenar dan langsung — Ambang Pegang Mining — Kepentingan derivatif dan tidak langsung — Pencelahan — Kehadiran pihak tidak perlu bagi pelupusan berkesan — isu 2 ssebagai ujian alternative - Risiko komersial yang diambil secara sedar — Pertikaian boleh diputus antara pihak sedia ada — Keadilan Prosedural — Tidak mewujudkan hak substantif baharu — Kes Dirujuk — Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1968] 2 MLJ 52; Sri Permata Sdn Bhd v PPH Realty Sdn Bhd [2001] 7 CLJ 633; Chong Fook Sin v Amanah Raya Bhd & Ors [2010] 7 CLJ 917 — Keputusan — Permohonan pencelahan ditolak — Kos RM3,000.00 kepada Plaintif. 1 Distribution Order made by the Land Administrator - HSM 1789 Lot 6444, Mukim Senai, Daerah Kulai, Negeri Johor - holding ½ share of the Land as trustee - Ps are siblings - alienation of the Land - petitioned for small estate - agreed not to claim any rights over the Land- Section 4 of the Small Estate (Distribution) Act 1955 [ACT 98] - Section 14(9) of ACT 98 - Fatimah Binti Mat Akir & Anor v. Sharif ah Binti Haji Ahmad &Ors [1977] 1 MLJ 107 - Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 - 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE – Saman pemula – Kesesuaian mod permulaan tindakan – Pertikaian fakta material berhubung Perjanjian Pilihan untuk Membeli (OTP) – Aturan 5 dan Aturan 28 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Aturan 28 kaedah 8 – Conversion OS kepada writ tidak digalakkan apabila mod OS adalah fundamentally inappropriate – Saman pemula ditolak dengan kebebasan memfailkan writ baharu KONTRAK – Perjanjian Pilihan untuk Membeli (OTP) hartanah – Kegagalan membayar baki deposit dalam tempoh ditetapkan – Bayaran lewat dan penerimaan/penolakan oleh pemilik tanah – Pertikaian niat pihak-pihak dan kesan kelewatan – Keperluan perbicaraan penuh dan keterangan lisan untuk menilai kesahan/pembatalan OTP TANAH – Kaveat persendirian di bawah s 327 Kanun Tanah Negara – Kaveat dimasukkan selepas luput OTP – Kaveat ditarik balik oleh pihak yang meletakkannya – Permohonan membatalkan kaveat menjadi akademik (moot) selepas penarikan balik – Tiada justifikasi menghalang secara prospektif hak pihak untuk memohon kaveat baharu melalui Saman Pemula GANTIRUGI – Tuntutan gantirugi akibat kaveat – Keperluan pembuktian kerugian, hubungan kausal dan kuantum – Tuntutan fact-intensive – Tidak sesuai diputuskan melalui prosiding Saman Pemula berasaskan afidavit – Tuntutan gantirugi hendaklah dibawa melalui tindakan writ dengan perbicaraan penuh PROSIDING SAMAN PEMULA – Skop dan batasan – Sesuai untuk persoalan undang-undang atau fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan secara material – Tidak sesuai apabila perlu penilaian kredibiliti saksi, dokumen dan niat pihak – Mahkamah menolak Saman Pemula tanpa menjejaskan hak substantif untuk memfailkan writ RUJUKAN KES – Siow Yoon Keong v H Rosen Engineering BV – Neoh Ah Yan v Ong Leg Choo & Anor – Tetuan Teh Kim Teh, Salina & Co v Tan Kau Tiah @ Tan Ching Hai & Anor – Prinsip bahawa tuntutan gantirugi dan liabiliti yang kompleks tidak sepatutnya diputuskan melalui prosiding originating summons tetapi melalui tindakan writ berasingan 1 Res judicata – Striking out – Plaintiffs memfailkan saman pemula baharu berhubung hak milikan dan injunksi ke atas hartanah yang sama yang telah diputuskan dalam prosiding terdahulu – Isu dan pihak-pihak adalah sama – Tindakan baharu terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata – Litigasi berganda menyalahi prinsip finality of litigation – Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa Aturan 18 r.19(1)(b) & (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 membolehkan pliding dibatalkan jika ia remeh, menyusahkan atau suatu penyalahgunaan proses – Permohonan Defendan dibenarkan, saman pemula dibatalkan dengan kos. 1 Ratio decidendi Tindakan yang mengulangi isu dan pihak yang telah diputuskan terdahulu adalah terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata dan merupakan suatu penyalahgunaan proses, justeru boleh dibatalkan di bawah A.18 r.19(1)(b) & (d) ROC 2012. 1 Kes-kes Dirujuk & Prinsip Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v UMBC [1993] 4 CLJ 7 – Prinsip: Striking out hanya patut dibuat dalam kes yang jelas dan nyata di mana tindakan tidak berdaya maju. Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Langat & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ – Prinsip: Mengulangi isu yang sama dalam semakan kehakiman kedua adalah penyalahgunaan proses. 1 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 — Seksyen 418 — Rayuan — Pentadbir Tanah Daerah — Kuasa statutori — Pelanggaran syarat nyata — Hakmilik Pejabat Pendaftar — Hartanah HS(D) 545650, PTD 180999, Mukim Tebrau, Daerah Johor Bahru — Syarat nyata: “bangunan bertingkat bagi tujuan perdagangan” — Pelanggaran: pembinaan bangunan bengkel / tapak belukar — Notis Borang 7A (Seksyen 128 KTN) — Notis untuk memulihkan pelanggaran syarat — Tempoh 180 hari — Kemunasabahan tempoh — Penyampaian notis — Endorsan/pendaftaran notis atas hakmilik — Notis Borang 7B (Seksyen 129 KTN) — Notis tunjuk sebab — Kegagalan mematuhi Notis 7A — Proses pra-pelucuthakan — Keadilan prosedural (audi alteram partem) — Beban pembuktian — Cabaran keputusan pentadbiran — Illegality / Irrationality / Procedural impropriety — Wednesbury unreasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223) — Keadilan substantif / reasonableness (Tan Teck Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1997] 2 CLJ 11) — Had kuasa budi bicara (Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 135) — Prinsip dalam konteks pentadbiran tanah (Ng Chin Siu & Sons Rubber Estates Sdn Bhd v Collector of Land Revenue [1959] MLJ 136; United Development Company Sdn Bhd v State Government of Sabah [2011] 7 MLJ 209) — Kesahihan Notis 7A & 7B — Tiada mala fide / tiada penyalahgunaan kuasa / tiada ketidakrasionalan — AmBank (M) Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak & Anor [2014] 8 CLJ 34 — Hamidah Mohd Khalid & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak [2016] 7 CLJ 936 — Rayuan ditolak — Kos. 1 Tanah – Kaveat persendirian – Permohonan untuk membatalkan kaveat – Seksyen 323 dan 327 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 – Sama ada Defendan mempunyai kepentingan kaveat (caveatable interest) – Hartanah dijual melalui lelongan awam oleh pemegang gadaian – Hak gadaian berdaftar mempunyai keutamaan undang-undang (legal priority) – Pembeli lelongan memperoleh hak milik bebas daripada bebanan kemudian – Perintah Mahkamah Rendah Syariah hanya memberikan hak benefisial bersyarat – Defendan bukan pemilik berdaftar – Prinsip imbangan kemudahan (balance of convenience) – Kaveat menghalang pendaftaran pindah milik – Kaveat tidak sah dan bercanggah dengan hak sah pembeli lelongan – Kaveat dibatalkan. 1 1. Application under O.42 r.13 / O.92 r.4 to set aside ex parte order (14.05.2025). 1 2. Ex parte leave to enforce Sessions Court judgment via Prohibitory Order (O.47 r.6; ss.5, 324, 334 NLC). 1 3. Judgment not properly served; service on former solicitors invalid. 1 4. No personal/AR service; affidavit of service unreliable. 1 5. Prohibitory Order registered prematurely before service; no notice to chargee (AmBank). 1 6. Time under O.42 r.13 not triggered; application filed within time. 1 7. Sufficient cause shown under O.47 r.6(k). 1 8. Ex parte order and Prohibitory Order set aside; costs RM8,000. 1 1. Plaintiff seeks to restrain arbitration; earlier ex parte injunction set aside. 1 2. Defendant substantially complied with Clause 33 LOA; no serious issue established. 1 3. Applying Keet Gerald: damages adequate; balance of convenience favours arbitration. 1 4. Arbitration Act 2005 mandates minimal curial intervention; tribunal to determine jurisdiction. 1 5. Plaintiff’s participation in arbitration constitutes estoppel. 1 6. Application dismissed; costs RM10,000; Defendant at liberty to proceed with AIAC arbitration. 1 Order 15 Rule 6 of Rules of Court 2012, HSD 139033 PTD 505, purchased by the her late husband, Pegang Mining Co Ltd. v. Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52, the Property has been occupied by persons unknown, 1 1. The Plaintiff seeks vacant possession under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 against the Defendants who occupy the land without consent. 1 2. The Defendants contend lawful occupation due to a temple’s long existence, oral agreement, and freedom of religion. 1 3. The Court finds the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor under Section 340 NLC; the Order dated 26 February 2014 terminated any prior licence. 1 4. No bona fide triable issue arises; res judicata does not apply. 1 5. The Defendants are trespassers ab initio. The Plaintiff’s application under Order 89 ROC 2012 is allowed with costs. 1 Penyingkiran peguam – Konflik kepentingan – Hubungan fidusiari – Maklumat sulit – Kemungkinan menjadi saksi – Kaedah 3, 4 dan 5 Peraturan Profesion Undang-Undang (Amalan dan Etika) 1978 – Hak perwakilan – Kelewatan pemfailan – Persepsi munasabah konflik – Keadilan dan keyakinan awam – Permohonan dibenarkan – Kos dalam kausa. 1 1. Applicant: challenges removal as company secretary (20 December 2024). 1 2. Relief: declaration removal null & void; Fourth Respondent appointment invalid; Applicant remains lawful secretary; damages. 1 3. Background: First Respondent private company; Applicant appointed 15 April 2022; removal via EGM; no notice; no board resolution. 1 4. Law: Sections 236 & 239 Companies Act 2016 (Act 777). 1 5. Findings: removal invalid; procedural fairness breached; EGM ineffective; Fourth Respondent appointment void. 1 6. Damages: dismissed (no particulars; Originating Summons unsuitable). 1 7. Orders: declarations granted; damages dismissed; costs RM15,000.00. 1 Citizenship — Operation of law — Perkara 14(1)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan — Jadual Kedua Bahagian II — Seksyen 17 Jadual Kedua — Anak luar nikah — Kewarganegaraan ibu — Perkahwinan lewat daftar — Status tidak sah taraf — Foundling dan stateless child distinguished — Bidang kuasa Mahkamah — Deklarasi kewarganegaraan — Preliminary objection — Ketidaksesuian Saman Pemula — Kos. Prosedur sivil – Bantahan awal – Saman Pemula – Kegagalan mengintitulekan prosiding – Kegagalan menyatakan peruntukan undang-undang – Bidang kuasa Mahkamah – Kecacatan fatal – Prosiding diketepikan 1 Undang-Undang Tanah – Kaveat Persendirian – Caveatable interest – Sama ada benefisiari atau pengarah mempunyai kepentingan proprietari – Sama ada kepentingan pusaka pemegang saham mewujudkan kepentingan terhadap tanah – Sama ada kaveat boleh digunakan untuk menyelesaikan pertikaian korporat/keluarga – Penyalahgunaan proses kaveat – Justifikasi selepas peristiwa (post-event justification) – Beban pembuktian di bawah s.327 Kanun Tanah Negara – Doktrin entiti berasingan – Tugas fidusiari – Tadbir urus korporat – Sama ada dakwaan pelupusan tidak sah mewujudkan kepentingan benefisial – Sama ada kaveat difailkan secara mala fide. Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 – Seksyen 327 – Permohonan untuk membatalkan kaveat persendirian – Beban ke atas caveator untuk membuktikan kepentingan proprietari yang boleh didaftarkan atau kepentingan benefisial – Kepentingan proprietari mesti wujud pada tarikh kaveat difailkan. Undang-Undang Syarikat – Entiti berasingan – Sama ada pemegang saham/benefisiari/wakil pusaka mempunyai kepentingan terhadap tanah milik syarikat – Kuasa pengarah – s.223 Akta Syarikat 2016 – Perbezaan antara pertikaian korporat dan tuntutan proprietari. 1 AMANAH — Tanah berdaftar — Dakwaan kewujudan amanah — Surat Amanah tidak didaftarkan — Beban pembuktian — Keperluan pembuktian niat, subjek dan benefisiari — Keterangan selepas fakta — Akuan Berkanun waris-waris — Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan amanah — Kanun Tanah Negara 1965, ss 325, 417 — Akta Pemegang Amanah 1949, ss 4, 7, 9, 33, 37, 56, 57, 61 1 KETERANGAN — Beban pembuktian — Dakwaan amanah — Keperluan keterangan objektif dan kontemporari — Keterangan bersifat self-serving — Penilaian keterangan secara menyeluruh — Akta Keterangan 1950 1 AMANAH — Pelantikan pemegang amanah — Prasyarat kewujudan amanah yang sah — Kuasa Mahkamah — Sama ada Mahkamah boleh melantik pemegang amanah baharu tanpa amanah yang dibuktikan — Akta Pemegang Amanah 1949 1 PUSAKA — Pentadbiran harta pusaka — Hak waris — Petisyen pusaka kecil — Campur tangan kehakiman — Sama ada wajar dibatalkan 1 TANAH — Kaveat persendirian — Kepentingan waris — Perlindungan sementara — Sama ada mala fide atau penyalahgunaan proses — Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 1 PROSEDUR — Saman Pemula — Permohonan deklaratori — Kegagalan membuktikan asas tuntutan — Permohonan ditolak — Kos 1 Undang-undang pentadbiran – semakan kehakiman untuk, antara yang lain, satu perintah certiorari bagi tujuan membatalkan keputusan yang diberikan oleh Perayu Pertama melalui Awad Bagi Pihak Yang Menuntut Jika Penentang Tidak Hadir (Borang 8) bertarikh 17.01.2023 yang dikeluarkan oleh Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna di Johor Bahru, Johor – satu perintah certiorari bagi tujuan membatalkan keputusan yang diberikan oleh Perayu Pertama melalui Award Selepas Pendengaran (Borang 10) bertarikh 09.01.2024 yang dikeluarkan oleh Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna di Johor – sama ada keputusan Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna adalah muktamad dan tidak boleh dicabar melalui semakan kehakiman – sama ada keputusan Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna adalah menyalahi undang-undang, tidak munasabah dan/atau melalui prosedur yang tidak wajar. 1 kebenaran untuk semakan kehakiman-sama ada terdapat keputusan bersabit pelupusan anjing liar-jika permohonan di luar masa-keputusan jika melanggar SOP 1 1. This is an application for Judicial Review by Southern Power Generation Sdn Bhd seeking to quash the Notices of Assessment issued by the Director-General of Inland Revenue for YAs 2017–2021 totaling RM78.5 million. 1 2. The Applicant contends the assessments were unlawful and tainted by errors of law. 1 3. Having considered all submissions, the Court finds the Energy Test Payments taxable under section 4(a), Sukuk interest deductible under paragraph 33(1)(a) and tax credits under section 110 rightly claimable. 1 4. The impugned assessments are therefore quashed by certiorari. 1 5. No cause for this application as confirmed by the Applicant. 1 Semakan Kehakiman – Aturan 53 KKM 2012 – Notis Taksiran Cukai Pendapatan Tahun Taksiran 2018 – Sama ada permohonan JR boleh dibenarkan apabila remedi domestik (SCIT) tersedia dan telah digunakan – Prinsip Kind Action (FC 2025) dibezakan – Badges of Trade – Pelupusan 72 unit apartmen – Sama ada tertakluk kepada s.4(a) ACP atau CKHT 1976 – Adventure in the Nature of Trade – Kuasa audit KPHDN – Kuasa statutori s.4(a) dan s.91 ACP – Penalti s.113(2) ACP – Incorrect Return – Strict Liability – Tidak perlu mens rea – Betulkah penalti dikenakan – Bidang kuasa SCIT ke atas penalti – Perintah Penggantungan (Stay) – Keadaan luar biasa – Kepentingan awam dalam kutipan cukai – Penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah – Afidavit tambahan membawa isu baharu (time-barred) – Tidak diplid – Prinsip pliding (Samuel Naik; Ranjan Paramalingam) – Collateral attack – Duplicity of proceedings – Beban bukti tinggi dalam JR percukaian – Wednesbury unreasonableness – Tiada pelanggaran keadilan asasi – Permohonan ditolak dengan kos. 1 Administrative Law – Judicial remedies – Judicial review - Function of High Court when dealing with applications for judicial review - Whether High Court may act as an appeal court – Whether the Applicant’s judicial review application complies with the mandatory requirements under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether the Industrial Court committed any jurisdictional error, error of law, or procedural impropriety justifying judicial intervention – Whether the Court is being invited to impermissibly re-evaluate the merits of the Industrial Court’s findings 1 1. This is a judicial review application to quash Industrial Court Award No. 1200 of 2024. 1 2. The affidavit in Enclosure 13 is struck out for non-compliance with ROC 2012. 1 3. The Claimant’s evidence was unchallenged; the Industrial Court failed to evaluate material evidence. 1 4. The tribunal misapplied section 2 IRA 1967 and committed illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. 1 5. The Claimant is declared a “workman” and his dismissal on 1 October 2019 was without just cause or excuse. 1 6. Certiorari granted; matter remitted to the Industrial Court for remedy; costs to Claimant. 1 PENZAHIRAN DOKUMEN – Aturan 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – relevansi – necessity – Semakan Kehakiman – rekod keputusan – Peraturan 49(3) Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 – dokumen terperingkat – Akta Rahsia Rasmi 1972 – privilege – public interest immunity – kuasa Mahkamah di bawah seksyen 25(2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 – fishing expedition – skop JR – rekod keputusan pentadbiran – permohonan ditolak. 1 judicial review- limitation- when time starts to run- multiple notice indication of knowledge on applicant 1 R1 reported water leakage from unit above; JMB inspections confirmed Applicants responsible. Repairs done, but damage persisted. R1 claimed RM13,045; tribunal awarded RM8,000. Applicants filed judicial review challenging the award. unit property D-01-07, Order 53 Rules of Court 2012, Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri v Pengarah Kebudayaan & Keseniaan Johor & Ors [2010] 5 CLJ 865, Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997 1 MLJ 145, Strata Management Act 2013, Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768 1 1. Pengurusan Kehakiman, Akta 777, Seksyen 405, Insolvensi, Going Concern, Petisyen Penggulungan Agrobank 1 2. Pemohon memohon Perintah Pengurusan Kehakiman (JMO) di bawah ss. 404-407 Akta 777 dan mencadangkan Datuk Tee Guan Pian sebagai Pengurus Kehakiman. 1 3. Agrobank sebagai pemiutang utama menentang dan telah menfailkan Petisyen Penggulungan. 1 4. Bukti menunjukkan aset tersedia, perjanjian penyelesaian, operasi berterusan dan aliran tunai aktif. 1 5. Mahkamah berpuas hati syarat s.405(1)(a) dan (b) dipenuhi dengan prospek pemulihan munasabah. 1 6. Bantahan Agrobank tidak bona fide; pelan pemulihan disokong dokumen kukuh. 1 7. Keputusan JMO diberi; Datuk Tee Guan Pian dilantik 6 bulan; moratorium statutori berkuat kuasa; kebebasan memohon; kos dalam pengurusan. 1 1. Mahkamah ini membenarkan Enclosure 27 iaitu permohonan Responden untuk menangguhkan Petisyen Penggulungan Enclosure 2 dalam Saman “104”. 1 2. Penangguhan wajar diberi kerana terdapat kemungkinan nyata berlaku pelanggaran keadilan asasi sekiranya Enclosure 2 diputuskan sebelum penyelesaian Saman “3” (yang difailkan lebih awal untuk menuntut dan mencabar Perintah Adjudikasi). 1 3. Perintah Adjudikasi yang dijadikan asas Petisyen masih belum dimuktamadkan, dengan beberapa prosiding berkaitan (Saman “3” dan Saman “11”) masih berjalan. 1 4. Setelah menimbang hak kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah mendapati penangguhan adalah wajar. 1 5. Justeru, Enclosure 27 dibenarkan dan penangguhan diberikan sehingga selesai Saman “3”. 1 Company Law – Winding-up – Petition by creditor – Respondent company’s failure to pay liquidated debt – No affidavit in opposition filed –– Whether inability to pay debts established – Whether Court should exercise discretion to refuse order – Companies Act 2016, ss. 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a) 1 Company law - Winding up - Petition based on unsatisfied judgment debt - Applications to stay winding - up proceedings - s 465(1)(e), s 466(1), s 470 and s 493 Companies Act 2016 - Pending appeal and Federal Court leave application - Separate writ action and alleged set-off - Special circumstances - Meaning - Whether bona fide dispute of judgment debt - Whether reputational and commercial prejudice sufficient to justify stay - Judicial management evidence and solvency Evidence - Affidavit - Application to cross-examine deponent in winding-up petition - O 38 r 2(2) ROC 2012 - Principles - Whether existence of material factual dispute - Alleged collateral purpose and abuse of process 1 Syarikat dan Undang-Undang Syarikat — Petisyen penggulungan — Seksyen 465(1)(f) Akta Syarikat 2016 — Seksyen 465(1)(h) Akta Syarikat 2016 — “unfair or unjust” — “just and equitable” — budi bicara Mahkamah — syarikat berjalan/solvent — remedi drastik — “overkill” / “sledgehammer remedy” — penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah — tujuan kolateral — “clean hands” — Petisyen ditolak — kos. 1 STRIKE-OUT (ENCLOSURE 23) Company law — Winding up — s.465(1)(h) Companies Act 2016 — Just and equitable ground — Alleged improper share issuance and dilution — Exclusion from management — Breakdown of mutual trust and confidence — Quasi-partnership not prerequisite — Strike out under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012 exercised sparingly — Disputed facts unsuitable for summary disposal — Alternative remedies and joinder procedural matters — Petition not plainly unsustainable or abusive — Application dismissed with costs. 1 EXPUNGEMENT (ENCLOSURE 28) Affidavit Verifying Petition — Jurat — Deponent appeared to understand affidavit — O.41 r.3 ROC 2012 — Any irregularity curable under O.1A and O.2 ROC 2012 — No prejudice occasioned — Defect not going to root of proceedings — Expungement limited to scandalous and irrelevant matters — Technical objection raised belatedly — Affidavit valid — Application dismissed with costs. 1 s.465(1)(e) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) - pay debts and inability - s.466(1)(a) of CA 2016.- ss.477, 478 and 479 of CA 2016 - MRT Kajang Line project - Constructions Industry Payment Adjudication Act 2012 - Adjudication Decision - failed to deposit - Notice of Demand -s.13 and s.37 CIPAA - ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd [2022] 6 MLJ 392 - 1 Company Law –– Winding Up –– Liquidator –– Bringing or defending the proposed legal proceedings –– refusal of the Liquidator to bring or defend the proposed legal proceedings –– whether leave should be granted to the Applicant, as contributory, to proceed and continue with the Arbitration Proceedings on behalf of the wound-up company under subsection 486(2) of the Companies Act 2016 –– Arbitration hearing dates already fixed –– wound-up company has substantial counterclaim amounting to RM30mil 1 Pihak Pemiutang Penghakiman (JC) merupakan sebuah bank berlesen di bawah Akta Perbankan dan Institusi Kewangan 1989 yang menjalankan perniagaan perbankan. Pihak Penghutang Penghakiman (JD) pula merupakan pelanggan dan juga penjamin kepada Syarikat Utama Instedt (M) Sdn Bhd (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Syarikat Utama) yang telah membuat satu pinjaman pembiayaan dengan pihak JC. 1 Satu Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran telah dimasukkan terhadap Syarikat Utama dan juga JD pada 13 Mac 2024 dengan jumlah tuntutan sebanyak RM 2,683,275.85. Selanjutnya pihak Syarikat Utama juga telah digulungkan berdasarkan Perintah Penggulungan dari Mahkamah Tinggi Georgetown Pulau Pinang pada 4.6.2024. Lanjutan dari itu, pihak JC telah memfailkan Permintaan Untuk Mengeluarkan Notis Kebankrapan dan Notis Kebankrapan ke Mahkamah ini pada 21.11.2024. 1 Rentetan dari pemfailan Notis Kebankrapan (Kandungan 2) tersebut, terdapat 2 permohonan yang telah difailkan oleh kedua dua belah pihak ke Mahkamah iaitu Kandungan 4 dan juga Kandungan 23. Kandungan 4 merupakan permohonan yang difailkan oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman (JC) untuk mendapatkan kebenaran meneruskan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD yang merupakan Penjamin berdasarkan S.5 (3) (b) Akta Insolvensi 1967. 1 Manakala Kandungan 23 adalah berkenaan permohonan dari pihak Penghutang Penghakiman (JD) untuk mengenepikan Notis Kebankrapan Lampiran 2 atas alasan kegagalan dari pihak JC mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah berdasarkan S.5 (3) (b) Akta Insolvensi 1967. 1 Pihak Pemiutang Penghakiman (JC) merupakan sebuah Syarikat perbankan Islam serta menjalankan perniagaan perbankan di Malaysia. Pihak Penghutang Penghakiman (JD) pula merupakan pelanggan dan juga penjamin kepada Syarikat Utama Contact Enterprise Sdn Bhd (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Syarikat Utama). Syarikat utama yang telah membuat satu pinjaman pembiayaan dengan pihak JC dan JD merupakan penjamin bagi pembiayaan tersebut. 1 Satu Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran telah dimasukkan terhadap Syarikat Utama dan juga JD pada 28 September 2022 dengan jumlah tuntutan sebanyak RM 158,303.28 bagi CMTF-I 1 dan juga jumlah tunggakan sebanyak RM 2,947,644.92 bagi CMTF-I 2 setakat 31.7.2022. 1 Selanjutnya pihak Syarikat Utama telah digulungkan berdasarkan Perintah Penggulungan dari Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru pada 26.11.2024. Lanjutan dari itu, pihak JC telah memfailkan Permintaan Untuk Mengeluarkan Notis Kebankrapan dan Notis Kebankrapan ke Mahkamah ini pada 12.2.2025. 1 Turut difailkan bersama dengan Notis Kebankrapan tersebut adalah Saman Dalam Kamar (Lampiran 3) bagi permohonan pihak JC untuk mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah bagi meneruskan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD yang merupakan penjamin kepada Syarikat Utama berdasarkan S. 5 (3) (b) Akta Insolvensi 1967. 1 Pihak JC telah berjaya memperoleh Perintah untuk meneruskan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD yang merupakan Penjamin kepada Syarikat Utama berdasarkan S. 5 (3) (b) Akta Insolvensi 1967 dari Mahkamah ini pada 9.4.2025. Pihak JC seterusnya memfailkan Petisyen Pemiutang (Lampiran 10) pada 4.6.2025. 1 Rentetan dari pemfailan Petisyen Pemiutang (Lampiran 10) tersebut, pihak JD telah melantik Peguamcara dengan Notis Pelantikan difailkan pada 30.6.2025. Seterusnya pihak JD telah memfailkan Notis Niat Membantah Petisyen pada 20.7.2025 (Lampiran 15) dan juga Saman Dalam Kamar (Lampiran 17) pada 23.7.2025 bagi supaya Petisyen Pemiutang tersebut dibatalkan. 1 Kebankrapan — Rayuan — Rayuan oleh Penghutang Penghakiman (JD) terhadap keputusan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar menolak permohonan untuk membatalkan Notis Kebankrapan dan Petisyen Kebankrapan — Sama ada permohonan difailkan dalam tempoh tujuh (7) hari selepas penyampaian Notis Kebankrapan — Sama ada Pemiutang Penghakiman (JC) telah “exhausted all means” di bawah s.5(4) Akta Insolvensi 1967 — Sama ada Notis Kebankrapan dan Petisyen Kebankrapan sah dan teratur — Sama ada JD mempunyai merit substantif untuk mengenepikan Notis dan Petisyen — Akta Insolvensi 1967, ss.3(1)(i), 5(3)(b), 5(4), 5(5), 5(6), 5(7) — Kaedah-Kaedah Insolvensi 2017, kaedah 92(1)(c), 92(2)(a), 93, 97, 101. 1 JD merupakan penjamin kepada Travelers Tours (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (“Penghutang Utama”) bagi kemudahan pembiayaan yang diberikan oleh JC. Setelah Penghutang Utama digulungkan melalui perintah bertarikh 18.1.2023, JC memohon dan memperoleh kebenaran Mahkamah pada 13.6.2023 untuk memulakan prosiding kebankrapan terhadap JD sebagai penjamin di bawah s.5(3)(b) dan s.5(4) Akta Insolvensi 1967. Notis Kebankrapan difailkan pada 5.4.2023 dan Petisyen Kebankrapan pada 27.9.2023. JD gagal mematuhi Notis tersebut dan perbuatan kebankrapan berlaku pada 14.8.2023. JD kemudiannya memfailkan permohonan untuk membatalkan kedua-dua Notis dan Petisyen pada 27.10.2024 — lebih satu tahun selepas perbuatan kebankrapan dilakukan. Penolong Kanan Pendaftar menolak permohonan tersebut dengan kos RM500. JD merayu kepada Hakim Dalam Kamar pada 25.3.2025 dan rayuan ditolak dengan kos RM5,000. JD kemudian merayu ke Mahkamah ini. Isu: (i) Sama ada permohonan JD difailkan dalam tempoh tujuh (7) hari yang diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang; (ii) Sama ada JC telah “exhausted all means” terhadap Penghutang Utama di bawah s.5(4) Akta Insolvensi 1967; dan 1 (iii) Sama ada JD mempunyai merit substantif untuk mengetepikan Notis dan Petisyen Kebankrapan. Keputusan: Rayuan JD ditolak. Alasan: (1) Permohonan JD untuk mengetepikan Notis Kebankrapan difailkan lebih setahun selepas penyampaian sah Notis tersebut tanpa kebenaran Mahkamah dan oleh itu tidak kompeten. Peruntukan tempoh tujuh (7) hari di bawah Kaedah 92(2)(a) dan 93 Kaedah-Kaedah Insolvensi 2017 adalah bersifat mandatori. (Public Bank Bhd v Chan Chim Fook [2019] MLJU 1456; Gerald Giam Seng Teck; ex parte Prime Credit Leasing Sdn Bhd [1999] MLJU 582). (2) Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa JC telah memenuhi syarat “exhausted all means” sebagaimana kehendak s.5(4) AI 1967. Penghutang Utama telah digulung dan tiada prospek realistik bagi pemulihan hutang; perintah penggantungan yang diperolehi kemudian tidak menghalang tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD dan telah luput apabila JD gagal mematuhi terma bayaran RM60,000 sebulan. (Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Khairulnizam Jamaludin [2016] 7 CLJ 335; Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Ong Moon Huat [2018] 1 LNS 1612; OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Tan Chin Lam [2022] MLJU 1823). (3) JD gagal menunjukkan sebarang merit substantif untuk mengenepikan Notis atau Petisyen Kebankrapan. Hutang yang menjadi asas tindakan ini berpunca daripada penghakiman sah yang belum diketepikan atau digantung. Tiada bukti ketidakteraturan atau penyalahgunaan proses (Re Lim Sow Hoon; Ex parte Malayan Banking Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 1611). 1 Mahkamah menolak rayuan JD dan mengesahkan keputusan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar bertarikh 25.3.2025. Kos rayuan diberikan kepada JC RM5000.00. 1 INSOLVENSI – Permohonan Penghutang Penghakiman untuk membatal dan mengetepikan Notis Kebankrapan dan Petisyen Kebankrapan – Isu kelewatan memfailkan permohonan untuk mengetepikan Notis Kebankrapan – Kegagalan mematuhi tempoh mandatori tujuh (7) hari di bawah s.3(1)(i) Akta Insolvensi 1967 dan Kaedah 92–93 Kaedah-Kaedah Insolvensi 2017 – Sama ada permohonan adalah tidak kompeten dan terhalang oleh undang-undang (time-barred) – Sama ada Notis Kebankrapan bertarikh 5.4.2023 dan Petisyen Kebankrapan bertarikh 27.9.2023 adalah sah, teratur dan berasaskan penghakiman yang masih berkuat kuasa – Ketiadaan sebarang tuntutan balas, set-off atau pembelaan substantif oleh Penghutang Penghakiman – Dakwaan penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah (abuse of process) tidak dibuktikan – Notis Kebankrapan dan Petisyen Kebankrapan dikekalkan – Rayuan ditolak. 1 INSOLVENSI – Penjamin “other than social guarantor” – Permohonan kebankrapan terhadap penjamin di bawah s.5(3), (4), (5) dan (6) Akta Insolvensi 1967 – Keperluan mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah (leave) sebelum memulakan prosiding kebankrapan terhadap penjamin – Tafsiran kewajipan pemiutang untuk “menghabiskan segala cara” (exhausted all modes of execution and enforcement) terhadap Penghutang Utama yang telah digulung – Penggulungan syarikat dan perintah penggantungan sementara – Tiada prospek realistik untuk pemulihan hutang melalui penggulungan – Pemiutang Penghakiman berhak meneruskan tindakan kebankrapan ke atas penjamin – Syarat di bawah s.5(4) dipenuhi. 1 PROSEDUR SIVIL – Rayuan kepada Hakim Dalam Kamar daripada keputusan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar – Rayuan didengar semula (rehearing) seolah-olah perkara datang kali pertama di hadapan Hakim – Prinsip dalam Tuan Haji Ahmed Abdul Rahman v Arab-Malaysian Finance Berhad [1996] 1 CLJ 241 dan Re: Sulaiman Sahari; Ex Parte: Hafiz Khalid & Anor [2019] 1 LNS 1138 – Tiada asas untuk campur tangan dengan budi bicara PKP – Keputusan PKP menolak permohonan Penghutang Penghakiman dikekalkan – Rayuan Penghutang Penghakiman ke Mahkamah Tinggi ditolak dengan kos. 1 Isu pertama: Sama ada tuntutan JC adalah berlebihan 1 Isu kedua: Sama ada JC telah gagal menyerahkan Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran kepada JD dan sama ada Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran tersebut adalah penghakiman muktamad 1 Isu Pertama: Sama ada JC seharusnya mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah terlebih dahulu sebelum memulakan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD 1 Isu Kedua: Sama ada kegagalan menyampaikan Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan serta Penghakiman Ingkar kepada JD bersifat fatal kepada kes JC 1 Insolvensi — Kebankrapan — Notis kebankrapan — Penyampaian ganti — Due diligence — Pendedahan penuh (full and frank disclosure) — Permohonan ex parte — Alamat perkhidmatan kontraktual — Klausa penyampaian — Tafsiran kontrak secara keseluruhan dan selaras tujuan — Serahan luar bidang kuasa — Rayuan kepada Hakim dalam Kamar — Campur tangan terhadap dapatan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar — Rayuan ditolak. 1 Insolvensi — Kebankrapan — Kebenaran memulakan prosiding kebankrapan — Penjamin / Penghutang Penghakiman — Kehendak “exhaustion” mod pelaksanaan dan penguatkuasaan terhadap penghutang prinsipal — Sama ada proses insolvensi/winding up prinsipal mesti selesai sepenuhnya — Tidak perlu (Gan Khian Pin v Malayan Banking Berhad [2021] MLJU 3039; Tebin Mostapa v Hulba-Danyal Balia & Anor [2020] CLJ 561 (FC) 1 Insolvensi — Kebankrapan — Stay of execution — Sama ada perintah stay pelaksanaan penghakiman menghalang permohonan “leave” kebankrapan — Stay di bawah IA 1967 — Seksyen 97 IA 1967 — Tidak dipohon — Stay tidak mengikat permohonan leave 1 Insolvensi — Kebankrapan — Sifat prosiding kebankrapan — Prosiding baharu (“fresh proceedings”) — Undang-undang dan peraturan berasingan — Perwira Affin Bank Bhd v Lim Ah Hee @ Sim Ah Hee [2004] 3 MLJ 253 (FC) 1 Insolvensi — Kebankrapan — “Act of bankruptcy” — Hujahan pramatang — Sama ada ketiadaan act of bankruptcy menjadikan leave sia-sia — Tidak; leave tidak “futile” semata-mata kerana act of bankruptcy belum berlaku 1 Insolvensi — Kebankrapan — Proof of debt — Sama ada prasyarat untuk kebenaran memulakan prosiding — Tiada peruntukan nyata — Hujahan tersalah arah 1 Estate administration – Application to set aside ex parte order – Enclosure 47 – Amendment of list of assets – Whether property forms part of deceased’s estate – Intestate estate – Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 – Distribution order by Estate Distribution Officer – Letters of administration – National Land Code 1965 – Jurisdiction to set aside ex parte order – Order 32 rule 6, Order 42 rule 13 and Order 92 rule 4 Rules of Court 2012 – Inherent jurisdiction – Right to be heard – Functus officio – Misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts – Abuse of court process – Conflict with prior order – Finality of administrative order – Ex debito justitiae 1 1. Mahkamah meneliti permohonan Pencelah (Kandungan 15) untuk mencelah dan dilantik sebagai pentadbir bersama harta pusaka si mati. 1 2. Pencelah adalah waris sah, haknya terhadap pentadbiran dan agihan pusaka boleh terjejas jika tidak dibenarkan mencelah. 1 3. Isu senarai aset / liabiliti si mati dipertikaikan, justeru kehadiran pencelah diperlukan untuk penyelesaian menyeluruh. 1 4. Mahkamah berpuas hati syarat Aturan 15 Kaedah 6(2)(b) KKM 2012 dipenuhi. 1 5. Keputusan: 1 5.1. Permohonan mencelah dibenarkan. 1 5.2. Isu pelantikan pentadbir bersama dibicarakan bersama Kandungan 1. 1 5.3. Kos dibayar daripada harta pusaka si mati. 1 Family Law — Divorce — Whether the Court can allow the Divorce Petition due to the failure of the Appellant to comply with directives including filing the Answer to the Petition by court deadline 1 Family Law – Discovery – Application for an order of the Court for discovery - Relevance in the context of discovery – Principles of law applicable to discovery proceedings – Order 24 Rules of the Court 2012 – Whether the Respondent husband had shown sufficient grounds to compel further discovery from the Petitioner wife – Whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary to determine matrimonial assets and financial capacity of Petitioner wife 1 Family Law — Divorce — Case Management — Whether the Court can strike out Divorce Petition and allow the Respondent’s Cross Petition due to the failure of the Appellant to comply with directives including filing pre-trial documents by deadline 1 Criminal Law — Appeal - Affray — Penal Code ss.159, 160 — Essential elements — Whether bilateral fight established — Whether fight occurred in public place — Whether public peace disturbed — Contradictions between contemporaneous police report and oral testimony — Unproduced alleged weapon (“tongkat”) — Weight of corroborative independent witness — Video evidence — Admissibility and probative value 1 Criminal Law — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — s 15(1)(a) — Self-administration of methamphetamine — Statutory presumption under s 37(k) — Burden of proof — Balance of probabilities — Chain of custody — Exhibit identification — Variance between charge and judgment — Afterthought defence — Misstatement of standard — Miscarriage of justice — s 316(b)(ii), s 422 Criminal Procedure Code. 1 CRIMINAL LAW: Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Robbery under section 392 of Penal Code – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Guilty plea discount – Whether discount of one-quarter to one-third properly applied for guilty plea – Whether trial court erred in determining appropriate sentence after guilty plea – Whether proper methodology applied in calculating sentence – Role of appellate court in interfering with sentences imposed by trial courts – Whether appellate court should exercise restraint – Whether public interest considerations can override guilty plea discount principle – Whether seriousness of offence negates requirement to give meaningful discount for guilty plea – Balancing of mitigating and aggravating factors – Whether personal circumstances and family hardship are relevant mitigating factors – Whether first offender status relevant – Whether recovery of stolen property relevant to sentencing – Whether absence of weapon and injury to victim relevant considerations – Proportionality in sentencing – Whether sentence should reflect both deterrence and mitigation 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeals – Appeal against acquittal – Acquittal at close of defence case – Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Whether prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt – Whether defence successfully raised reasonable doubt – Whether trial judge erred in assessment of evidence – Whether appellate court should interfere with trial court's findings on credibility and witness demeanour – Principles of appellate intervention – Whether trial court's findings plainly wrong or against weight of evidence EVIDENCE: Child witnesses – Sexual offences against children – Uncorroborated testimony of child witness – Section 18 of Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 – Section 2D of Evidence Act 1950 (Evidence of Child Witness (Amendment) Act 2024) – Whether conviction may be based on uncorroborated child testimony – Whether child testimony must be "unusually convincing" – Application of prudence rule in child sexual offence cases – Credibility assessment of child witness – Inconsistencies between police report and court testimony – Whether minor inconsistencies constitute material contradictions – Whether differences in detail between concise police report and elaborate court testimony material – Corroboration – Complaint made at first opportunity – Whether complaint to parent constitutes corroboration under Section 157 and Section 8 of Evidence Act 1950 – Whether subsequent withdrawal of complaint affects corroborative value – Absence of supporting evidence from other potential witnesses present at scene – Whether failure to record statements from other students present creates reasonable doubt – Whether absence of supporting evidence in public setting contributes to reasonable doubt – Adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act 1950 – Whether adverse inference may be drawn when evidence not obtained versus when evidence withheld or suppressed – Whether witnesses must be material and essential before adverse inference arises CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence – Whether defence must be put to prosecution witnesses during cross-examination – Whether failure to put defence constitutes afterthought – Whether defence not put to prosecution witnesses should be rejected – Application of rule where factual context (COVID-19 protocols) acknowledged by prosecution witness – Taking of judicial notice of facts of public knowledge 1 CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption — Public servant accepting valuable thing without consideration — Offence under s 165 Penal Code — Ingredients of offence — Whether accused was public servant — Whether accused accepted valuable thing for himself — Whether acceptance was without consideration — Whether accused knew intermediary had connection with his official functions — Whether "menyetuju terima" in charge equates to "accepts" or "agrees to accept" — Distinction between "menyetuju terima" and "bersetuju untuk menyetuju terima" under authoritative Malay text of MACC Act 2009 — Whether release of detained vessel prior to date of payment negated connection with official functions — Whether prosecution required to prove accused was actually responsible for investigation and that investigation was in fact conducted — Whether connection between intermediary and official functions sufficient or whether connection must be attributed to source of money — Maritime Zone Director of Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency accepting cash in connection with detained vessel 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge — Validity — Whether charge was defective — Whether charge sufficiently particularised — Whether naming intermediary rather than source of money as person having connection with official functions rendered charge defective — Requirements of ss 152 and 153 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether curative provisions of ss 156 and 422 Criminal Procedure Code applicable — Amendment of charge — Fourth amendment confined to change of time — Whether failure to explain rights under s 162 Criminal Procedure Code after amendment occasioned failure of justice — Whether accused represented by counsel who made no application to recall witnesses could complain of denial of s 162 rights — Prima facie case — Maximum evaluation test — Whether prima facie case established at close of prosecution case — Appellate standard — Whether conviction safe — Proper function of appellate court in criminal appeal — Whether appellate court should disturb findings of fact based on credibility 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Alibi — Defence of alibi — Notice of alibi under s 402A Criminal Procedure Code — Whether alibi witness not named in notice of alibi admissible — Mandatory nature of notice requirements — Internal contradictions between notice of alibi and oral testimony of accused — Whether alibi demolished by contradictions among defence witnesses themselves — Whether alibi was afterthought — Failure to disclose alibi to investigating officer — Failure to put alibi to prosecution witnesses during cross-examination — Whether accused required to prove alibi beyond reasonable doubt or merely raise reasonable doubt 1 EVIDENCE: Accomplice evidence — Whether giver and intermediary of gratification are accomplices — Section 52(1) MACC Act 2009 — Whether witnesses regarded as accomplices by reason only of giving or delivering gratification — Whether pre-MACC authorities on accomplice corroboration applicable to prescribed offences under MACC Act 2009 — Statutory presumption — Section 50(3) MACC Act 2009 — Condition precedents for invocation of presumption — Whether primary facts must be proved before presumption arises — Standard of rebuttal on balance of probabilities — Whether failure to raise reasonable doubt on lighter burden means failure to rebut presumption on heavier burden — Adverse inference — Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 — Whether failure to obtain call detail records warrants adverse inference — Distinction between suppression of evidence in possession and failure to obtain evidence — Credibility — Trial judge's advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses — Whether appellate court should disturb credibility findings — Whether direct eyewitness testimony may be accepted despite gaps in documentary evidence 1 CRIMINAL LAW: Sentencing — Offence under s 165 Penal Code — Sentence of twenty months' i 1 The proverb 'harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi' best encapsulates the facts of the case 1 Criminal Appeal - s 376(1) Penal Code -Complainant is an Indonesian, fled from her employer's house - Appellant is a police officer, brought the complainant to a hotel and had sexual intercourse with her 1 Whether sexual intercourse took place - no new tear of the hymen - complainant is a married woman and has a child from her marriage- new penetration would not in all circumstances produce new tears if there had been prior older tears- the lack of a sign of new tear of hymen does not suggest there was no penetration 1 Consent - from the action to escape or seek help which could have been taken but was not by the complainant, it can be said there was consensual sex 1 Position of authority - by virtue of his authoritative position as a policeman that the appellant was able to exert a significant or undue influence over the complainant that the complainant felt compelled to have sex with appellant - This is considered rape under s375(f) Penal Code 1 Conviction and sentence affirmed 1 SEMAKAN JENAYAH : Bidangkuasa semakan - Kuasa pendakwa raya-Kuasa mahkamah rendah untuk perintahkan DNAA-Kewajaran memberikan perintah DNAA-Kuasa dakwaan Pendakwa -Pertuduhan tidak berasas (groundless)-Hak Pendakwa raya untuk memohon perintah pelepasan-Perlembagaan Persekutuan [Perkara 145(3)]-Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman [s.31, 35(1), 36] - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [s. 173(f), 173(g), 254(1), 252(2), 254(3), 325, 326, 376] - Akta Keterangan [ s. 103] - ATIPSOM [ s.12] 1 Criminal Procedure - Revision - Revisionary power of High Court - Bail - Fresh evidence during revision 1 Revision - This is an application for a revision under section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) against a DNAA order passed by Johor Bahru Magistrate Court on 24/9/2024 - The Applicant was charged in the Johor Bahru Magistrate Court on 19/6/2023 for an offence under section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) for having inserted Ketamine into himself - Having heard submissions from both parties, this Court has decided to dismiss Applicant’s application and affirmed the Order passed by the Magistrate on 24/9/2024 - Aggrieved by this Court decision, the Applicant has filed an appeal. Herewith the Court reasons for dismissal. 1 Laws - Criminal Procedure Code - section 173 (f) & (g) - Section 254 - Section 259 - Discretion of court - Power of Deputy Public Prosecutor 1 Laws - Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal - DNAA - Discharge and Acquit - DAA 1 Criminal Procedure - Revision - Criminal revision - DNAA - Discharge and Acquittal - Duplicity Charge - Mala Fide Charge - s. 254A Criminal Procedure Code 1 Permohonan semakan - Permohonan dibenarkan - Perintah Majistret diakaskan - Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa perintah yang dikeluarkan oleh Puan Majisret pada 28.10.2024 terhadap OYDS-OYDS bersama-sama syarat tambahan adalah satu ketidakteraturan dalam prosedur reman yang wajib diketepikan sebelum ia menjadi norma baru dalam permohonan reman 1 Undang-undang - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Seksyen 323 - seksyen 360 - Seksyen 117 Permohonan reman - seksyen 118 Permohonan bon - seksyen 388 permohonan jaminan oleh Polis 1 Undang-undang - Permohonan pelepasan daripada reman setelah tamat tempoh reman - Keperluan untuk OYDS dikemukakan semula dihadapan Majistret yang mendengar reman bagi perintah pelepasan daripada reman - Kanun Prosedur Jenayah 1 Criminal Procedure – Notice of motion – Application to quash charge - S.128 Customs Act 1967 -Seizure of goods - Seizure notice - Failure to initiate prosecution - Property forfeiture proceeding - Art 145(3) Federal Constitutions - Power to prosecute - Written notice to claim goods 1 PROSEDUR JENAYAH – Permohonan meminda notis rayuan - S. 310 KTJ - Kekhilafan peguam - afidavit yang diikrarkan peguam - pindaan notis rayuan - usul untuk memasukkan rayuan terhadap hukuman - trend sentencing 1 Permohonan melalui Notis Usul - Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Jabatan Peguam Negara - Pihak ketiga 1 Permohonan untuk melucuthakkan wang (pelucuthakkan harta) yang disita daripada Responden-Responden sebagaimana kandungan Notis Usul bertarikh 30.8.2024 - Permohonan ini dibuat di bawah peruntukan seksyen 316 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) - Pemohon juga menggunapakai seksyen 61(2) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan Dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram / Anti Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Akta 613) bagi menyokong permohonan beliau 1 Undang-undang - Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan Dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 - AMLATFAA 2001 1 Undang-undang terhadap pihak suci hati di bawah seksyen 61 AMLATFAA 2001 - Pihak suci hati menuntut pemulangan wang yang disita 1 Semakan oleh Pemohon-pemohon - Terdapat dua (2) isu utama yang dibangkitkan oleh Pemohon-pemohon iaitu Peruntukan seksyen 124K Kanun Keseksaan berada di luar ruang lingkup dan skop SOSMA dan objektif/tujuan utama SOSMA digubal adalah untuk membanteras ancaman keganasan - Apabila kesalahan di bawah seksyen 124K Kanun Keseksaan tertakluk kepada SOSMA, maka ia di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Tinggi dan perlu dibicarakan sebagaimana bidang kuasa Mahkamah Tinggi, bukannya bukannya Mahkamah Sesyen 1 Mahkamah berpandangan SOSMA tidak terpakai untuk kesalahan di bawah seksyen 124K Kanun Keseksaan iaitu melakukan sabotaj terhadap perkhidmatan air kerana ia adalah tertakluk di bawah Perkara 149(1)(e) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang telah dikecualikan pemakaiannya di dalam SOSMA - Semakan dibenarkan - Perbicaraan kekal di Mahkamah Sesyen 1 Undang-undang - Perkara 149 Fasal 1 Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Kanun Keseksaan - Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) 1 Permohonan Jenayah - Pemohon bertujuan untuk mendapatkan satu perintah penangguhan perlaksanaan hukuman ('stay of execution') sementara menunggu pendengaran rayuan terhadap keseluruhan sabitan dan hukuman di Mahkamah Tinggi. Pemohon telah disabitkan di Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Tinggi, Johor pada 18.12.2024 kerana kesalahan merogol dengan hukuman pemenjaraan selama 12 tahun di bawah seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan. 1 Permohonan Jenayah - Seksyen 311 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Pemohon merupakan satu kesalahan yang tidak boleh dijamin, kecuali dengan budi bicara Mahkamah. Begitu juga dengan penggantungan perlaksanaan hukuman, Mahkamah boleh menggunakan budi-bicaranya untuk membenarkan permohonan tersebut dengan membenarkan jaminan diberi sementara menunggu rayuan kes Pemohon, jika Pemohon berjaya memenuhi syarat-syarat khas. Oleh yang demikian, adalah menjadi beban Pemohon untuk membuktikan kepada Mahkamah bahawa terdapatnya keadaan-keadaan khas (special and exceptional circumstances) yang wujud yang melayakkan permohonan tersebut dibenarkan. 1 Criminal Trial - s. 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - The accused was arrested at worker's quarters located within the SAJ water reservoir and brought to the police station - The police together with the accused returned to the SAJ reservoir the next day afternoon- The police seized 9 compressed packs of dried plant material (which was later confirmed as Cannabis) laying on top of the wall around the water tank - The drugs were neatly stacked in a row and left exposed 1 Prima facie case - drugs were in plain sight and can be seen by all and sundry as it was not covered or hidden - mere knowledge of the presence of the drugs on the wall of the tangki, without more, can never constitute possession - the compound of SAJ reservoir not guarded for more than 10 hours until the next day - possibility someone other than accused have the access cannot be discounted - prosecution failed to prove accused was in possession of the drugs 1 Accused acquitted and discharged 1 Prosedur Jenayah - Rayuan - s39B ADB - kes prima facie - s.114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 -siasatan tidak lengkap 1 Tertuduh telah dituduh dengan dua (2) pertuduhan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB1952) - Pertuduhan pertama mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat bersih 610.82 gram yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) ADB 1952 - Pertuduhan kedua memiliki dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin seberat bersih 3.13 gram yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(1) akta yang sama - Di akhir kes Pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini mendapati satu kes Prima Facie gagal dibuktikan terhadap OKT - OKT telah lepas dan bebas tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri - Rayuan daripada Timbalan Pendakwa Raya terpelajar 1 Undang-undang - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Memiliki dadah berbahaya 1 Isu undang-undang - Elemen milikan gagal di buktikan - Tertuduh dilepas dan bebas di akhir kes Pendakwaan - Prima Facie gagal dibuktikan 1 Criminal Trial - s. 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - SP1 stopped the accused standing by the roadside behaving in a suspicious manner - found the Drugs inside the bag slung on the accused's shoulder 1 Prima Facie case - accused has physical possession of the Drugs - custody and control over the Drugs - can be inferred from the conduct of the accused that he had knowledge of the Drugs that were inside the bag 1 Defence case- the accused denied he was arrested at the roadside and denied carrying the bag - the accused claimed that he was waiting for his car to be repaired at a workshop which was within the compound of the house No. 31, Jalan Tembusu (House) and the police came to arrest him - Nothing incriminating was found on the accused - The policemen carrying the bag and claimed he found the bag on the verandah of the House - the accused had called 2 defence witnesses to support his version 1 End of defence case- defence's version of events is different from that as presented by the prosecution - no other personal belongings like wallet, identity card of handphone were recovered from the accused except the driving license - foolhardy for the accused carrying drugs to walk around at 8.20 pm during MCO without his IC or handphone especially since there would be strong possibilities police patrol to enforce MCO - no evidence was tendered by the prosecution to disprove SD2 and SD3's testimonies that the accused's car was being repaired at the time the accused was arrested - no reason for SD3 to lie - failure to verify and/or rebut the accused's story amount to a breach of Alcontara direction 1 Accused successfully rebutted the presumption of s37(da) DDA - prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - accused is acquitted and discharged forthwith 1 CRIMINAL LAW — Drug offences; multiple charges; dangerous drugs and poisons; methamphetamine; MDMA; ketamine; cannabis; codeine; sentencing for possession under DDA 1952 and Poisons Act 1952; alternative charge under s 12(2) DDA offered following representation; plea of guilty; voluntariness; use of interpreters; explanation of consequences of guilty plea; valid framing of charges under CPC Ch XVIII; - Prevalence of drug menace; need for deterrent sentences; public safety; balancing rehabilitation and deterrence; judicial discretion within statutory limits SENTENCING — Principles; deterrence; public interest; totality principle; concurrency; one transaction rule; first time offenders; cooperation with police; absence of violence; crushing effect; proportionality; sentencing trends considered; weight and type of drugs relevant; caning mandatory for male accused under s 39A(2) DDA; exemption for female accused under s 289(a) CPC – Mitigation: guilty plea as mitigation; background circumstances; socio economic factors; hardship to families; female foreign accused; factors relevant to leniency; cooperation; remorse; policy reasons for discount upon guilty plea. 1 Perbicaraan Jenayah - Alasan Penghakiman - Hakim Bicara - Prima Facie - Sabitan di akhir kes Pembelaan 1 Fakta Kes - OKT telah dituduh dengan satu pertuduhan di bawah kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis berat bersih 3259.5 gram - seksyen 39B (1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - sabitan hukuman mati atau pemenjaraan seumur hidup dengan 12 kali sebatan sepertimana peruntukan seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama. Perbicaraan penuh - Di akhir kes Pembelaan, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa Pembelaan gagal menimbulkan keraguan terhadap kes Pendakwaan. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah telah mensabitkan OKT dengan pemenjaraan seumur hidup dengan 12 kali sebatan. 1 Pembelaan - pemikiran terkemudian / afterthoughts - penafian / bare denial 1 Rayuan - sabitan dan hukuman 1 Undang-undang - Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - seksyen 180, seksyen 399 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 1 Criminal Trial - s. 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - NFS was 15 years and 11 months old when arrested - SP4 and the team found NFS in the 3rd room of the house. Drugs found in a hole in the wall behind a wooden mirror frame which had been converted into a storage space - SP7 and 2 children found in the 1st room 1 s154 Evidence Act - hostile witness - material differences between SP7's testimony in court and her 112 statement - even though SP7 was treated as hostile witness, it is still discretion of the court whether to reject in whole or in part the evidence of SP7 depending on the result of cross-examination - since SP7 is not discredited, her evidence can be accepted - NFS does not have custody or control over the Drugs 1 Prima Facie case - prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case against NFS in all the charges in accordance with s180 CPC - NFS was acquitted and discharged 1 Criminal Trial - s. 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952- police saw both accused seated on a white fiberglass boat (Boat) beside a homestay (Homestay) - after an hour the police arrested both accused in the Homestay - both accused led the police to the Boat - using a grinder machine the police cut the floorboard of the Boat and found 23 parcels that contained drugs underneath the floorboards 1 Owner of the Homestay testified that the Boat was left by Indonesian men 2 months ago- the compound of the Homestay is not gated nor fenced - anyone would be able to enter the compound and access the Boat - proximity does not necessary mean both accused had custody or control of the Drugs - Drugs were concealed underneath the floorboards of the Boat - possibilities of access by other people cannot be discounted 1 s27 Evidence Act 1950 - no evidence of which of the 2 accused had directed or what was said by whom, there is a possibility of information made by one to be confused with the other person - no record or evidence of what were the questions of the police and answers given by accused (if any), the contention that both or either one of the accused had given information leading to discovery of the Drugs cannot be relied upon 1 Handphones - issue of tampering of the phones - pictures in the phones are not linked to the Boat - limited or no probative value 1 Break in chain of evidence - tear in the packages - no record of registration in the store - failure to show record of movement of the Drugs is a serious omission 1 End of prosecution case - Failed to make out prima facie case against both accused - both accused acquitted and discharged 1 Pengenalan - Tertuduh telah dituduh mengedar dadah berbahaya seberat bersih 69.33 gram jenis Methamphetamine di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB) yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama. Perbicaraan dijalankan di Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru di bawah no JA-45A-17-02/2022. Keputusan di akhir kes Pendakwaan - Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan bahawa Pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap OKT. OKT lepas dan bebas tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri 1 Undang-undang - Pengedaran dadah di bawah Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 1 Isu di hadapan Mahkamah - Percanggahan keterangan antara saksi Pendakwaan - tiada penjelasan kepada Mahkamah 1 Prima Facie - elemen pemilikan dadah dibuktikan secara afirmatif - anggapan s.37(da) ADB digunapakai 1 RAYUAN JENAYAH : - mitigasi - pengakuan salah - kesalahan pertama - pesalah muda - berat dadah 1 Prima Facie dibuktikan - elemen pemilikan dadah dibuktikan secara afirmatif - anggapan s.37(da) ADB digunapakai 1 Criminal Trial - s. 39B(1)(a) and s.39A(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952- Charge in P3B (Drugs in RNR toilet)- the evidence of the accused holding P6B in his right hand and his attempt to throw away when was caught, leads to the irresistible inference that the accused knew P6B contained drugs Charge in P3A (Drugs in Saujana House) - the keys for Saujana House found near the handbrake of the accused's car- the accused guided the police to Saujana House- accused had control of the drugs - water bill under the name of the accused- the accused had knowledge and custody, control of the drugs 1 Accused has failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s.37 (da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 on balance of probabilities and has failed to cast any reasonable doubt on the Prosecution’s case - Accused was found guilty and convicted as charged 1 Pengedaran dadah di perairan Johor Barat - tangkapan anggota Maritim - Methampethamine - wujud kes prima facie - kes pembelaan hanya penafian semata-mata - didapati bersalah - hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan 12 kali sebatan. 1 Pengenalan - Dalam kes ini, Tertuduh Pertama (OKT1), Tertuduh Kedua (OKT2) dan Tertuduh Ketiga(OKT3) telah dituduh bersama-sama dengan dua (2) pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB1952) yang membawa kepada hukuman mati atau pemenjaraan seumur hidup dengan 12 sebatan sepertimana peruntukan seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama. Anggapan pengedaran dadah berbahaya yang terpakai di bawah pertuduhan ini adalah di bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB1952.Selain itu, OKT-OKT juga turut dituduh dengan satu (1) lagi pertuduhan memiliki dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB1952 yang dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama. Prima Facie - Diakhir kes Pendakwaan - Peruntukan seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ), OKT-OKT seterusnya telah diarahkan untuk membela diri. Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Di akhir kes Pembelaan, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa Pembelaan telah gagal menimbulkan sebarang keraguan munasabah dalam kes Pendakwaan. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah telah mensabitkan OKT-OKT terhadap kedua-dua pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya dengan pemenjaraan seumur hidup dan 12 kali sebatan, manakala bagi pertuduhan memiliki dadah berbahaya disabitkan dengan pemenjaraan selama satu (1) tahun - Hukuman pemenjaraan berjalan serentak 1 Undang-undang - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah seksyen 180(4) Undang-undang - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Seksyen 39B(2) - Seksyen 12(2)/12(3) - Seksyen 37(da) - Anggapan pengedaran 1 Undang-Undang - seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Niat bersama dibuktikan terhadap semua tertuduh 1 Keterangan - DNA - reaksi dan tindakan OKT melarikan diri 1 Pertuduhan-pertuduhan - Pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB1952) yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan memiliki racun jenis Etizolam yang menjadi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 (AR1952) yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 30(5) Akta yang sama - Tertuduh disabitkan di akhir kes Pembelaan dan dihukum penjara seumur hidup dengan 12 sebatan rotan. 1 Adverse inferens di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 di peringkat Pendakwaan - Ketiadaan keterangan daripada mereka tidak mewujudkan satu kelompangan dalam kes Pendakwaan. Selari dengan prinsip yang diketengahkan dalam kes Mansor Md Rashid dengan ketidakpanggilan Amran sebagai saksi walaupun Amran duduk serumah dengan tertuduh dalam kes tersebut. 1 Impeachment of witness - Di peringkat Pembelaan, SD2 iaitu ibu kepada OKT telah dipanggil sebagai saksi Pembelaan - Saksi yang ditawarkan - Terdapat beberapa percanggahan keterangan di Mahkamah dan kepada polis di bawah s. 112 KTJ - TPR terpelajar telah memohon kepada Mahkamah untuk memulakan prosiding mencabar kebolehpercayaan keterangan atau ‘impeachment’ SD2. Permohonan di bawah seksyen 155(c) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Salinan rakaman percakapan SD2 diserahkan kepada Mahkamah untuk dibuat perbandingan. Oleh kerana SD2 masih menafikan bahawa beliau ada membuat rakaman percakapan tersebut - Prosiding perbicaraan dalam bicara / trial within a trial (TWT) telah dijalankan 1 Undang-undang - seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - seksyen 30 Akta Racun 1952 - Seksyen 114(g) dan seksyen 155 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Seksyen 112 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 1 Prosedur Jenayah - pengakuan salah oleh tertuduh - berat dadah - faktor mitigasi yang perlu diambil kira - pemberatan 1 Tertuduh (OKT) di dalam kes ini telah dituduh dengan dua (2) pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama. Di akhir kes perbicaraan Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan satu kes melampaui keraguan munasabah apabila Pembelaan gagal membangkitkan sebarang keraguan munasabah terhadap kes Pendakwaan. OKT telah disabitkan dan dihukum penjara seumur hidup dengan 12 sebatan bagi tiap-tiap pertuduhan yang dituduh ke atasnya. Rayuan keatas sabitan dan hukuman 1 Peringkat Pendakwaan - Notis Alcontara rujukan kepada kes Alcontara - Prinsip good alcontara notice - innocent carrier 1 Peringkat Pembelaan - pembelaan bersifat pemikiran terkemudian / afterthoughts - pembelaan penafian / bare denial 1 Undang-undang - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Seksyen 37(da) - anggapan pengedaran 1 Undang-undang - Akta Keterangan 1950 - Seksyen 134 1 Tertuduh lepas bebas - Tertuduh dituduh mengedar dadah berbahaya seberat bersih 375.42 gram jenis Methamphetamine di bawah seksyen 39B (1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB) yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama - Di akhir kes Pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini mendapai Pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan satu kes Prima Facie terhadap OKT. OKT lepas dan bebas tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. Keputuan ini dibuat apabila Pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes diluar keraguan munasabah terhadap OKT - Mahkamah ini mendapati wujudnya kelompangan yang serius dalam kes Pendakwaan di mana keterangan-keterangan sedia ada gagal meyakinkan Mahkamah bahawa OKT mempunyai milikan, jagaan dan kawalan terhadap dadah berbahaya yang dipertuduhkan. Rayuan terhadap perintah lepas bebas - Terkilan dengan keputusan Mahkamah, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR) telah memfailkan rayuan. 1 Isu-isu - Ketidakpanggilan saksi-saksi yang berada di tempat kejadian - Information leading to discovery di bawah seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Pengetahuan tidak membuktikan milikan 1 Criminal Trial - s. 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Routine maritime patrol by Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (APMM) during the month of Ramadan- Both accused on the boat- A green plastic container containing Methamphetamine of 710.26 gram found on the boat underneath the seat occupied by 1st accused - 1 Direct possession of the drugs- presumption under s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applied 1 Both accused has failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s.37 (da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 on balance of probabilities and has failed to cast any reasonable doubt on the Prosecution’s case - Both accused found guilty and convicted on as charged 1 Criminal Trial - s. 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952- police saw the 1st accused's car parked by the road shoulder - police saw the 1st accused came out from the car and passed a black box P8 to 2nd accused who came out from the bushes of the oil palm plantation - the police rushed to both accused - 2nd accused tried to run away and was seen to throw P8 into the nearby bushes - drugs were found inside P8 1 Defence - 1st accused stopped his car at the material time due to a water radiator issue in his car - 2nd accused was looking for earthworms for fishing - both accused did not know each other - it was the police who had found the black bag underneath some oil palm leaves - the place where the police claimed to have parked his car to observe the 1st accused car was more than 2 kilometers away and not 50 meters as claimed by the police 1 Recalling of prosecution witnesses - SP3 (RO) and SP5 (IO) recalled - Admission by SP3 that the distance he had marked as A and X in the photo P9(6) during prosecution case was about 1.9 kilometers and is direct contradiction to his earlier testimony 1 End of defence case - Admissions from SP3 and SP5 to the discrepancies are damaging and cannot be explained away as mistakes or oversight - the court cannot rely on the observations of SP3 as to what had transpired between 1st accused and 2nd accused at the material time - defence successfully rebutted the presumption on a balance of probability - both accused are acquitted and discharged forthwith 1 Criminal Trial - s. 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952- police received information of drug trafficking activities at a shophouse Bavani Store (Bavani shop) - police observing for 45 minutes infront of Bavani Shop and saw the accused putting a paper bag into a Proton Wira JEK 2223 (Car)- The police arrested the accused at the 2nd floor of Bavani Shop - Key and remote control of the Car found in the left pocket of the accused's trousers - Accused led the police to the Car and pointed to a "Schaefer Precal" paper bag which was the same paper bag that the accused put into the Car earlier on - Drugs found inside the paper bag 1 Discrepancy between the oral testimony of SP4 and his police report P18A - SP4 did not state that he had seen the accused putting the paper bag into the Car - oral testimony of the witness in court as substantive evidence - police report is only an instrument that triggers the process of investigation - discrepancies not substantial - police report merely served as collaborative evidence 1 Failure to cross examine of SP4 on his observation of the accused placing the paper into the car amounts to an acceptance of SP4's evidence 1 The series of questions and answers posed by SP4 to the accused would amount to information leading to recovery and not discovery - such information is inadmissible 1 The conduct of the accused is relevant under s8 and s9 of the Evidence act that he had custody and control over the Drugs - since SP4 saw the accused putting the paper bag into the back passenger seat of the car and car key found with the accused, it can be inferred that the accused had knowledge of the Drugs 1 Defence - Kamotenu passed the Car keys to the accused to return the Car to the accused's father - Less than 5 minutes after Kamotenu left, the policemen came and arrested the accused 1 End of defence case - Accused has failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s.37 (da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 on balance of probabilities and has failed to cast any reasonable doubt on the Prosecution’s case - Accused was found guilty and convicted as charged 1 Fakta Kes - Tertuduh telah dituduh dengan (4) empat pertuduhan pindaan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB). Pertuduhan pindaan pertama kerana memiliki dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin seberat bersih 0.88 gram yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) ADB, pertuduhan pindaan kedua kerana mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat bersih 85.83 gram yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) ADB, pertuduhan pindaan ketiga kerana memiliki kesan dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat bersih bahan 6.01 gram yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(1) dan pertuduhan tambahan (keempat) kerana memiliki dadah berbahaya jenis monoacetylmorphines seberat bersih 0.69 gram yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) ADB. Satu kes prima facie telah dibuktikan oleh Pendakwaan di akhir kes Pendakwaan dan seterusnya Mahkamah memanggil OKT untuk membela diri. Di akhir kes Pembelaan, Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan bahawa OKT telah gagal menimbulkan keraguan dalam kes Pendakwaan. OKT seterusnya telah disabitkan dan dihukum di atas semua pertuduhan ke atas dirinya. OKT telah tidak berpuas hati terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini lalu memfailkan rayuan. 1 Undang-Undang - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952 1 Isu Undang-undang - Milikan, kawalan dan jagaan terhadap dadah berbahaya yang dipertuduhkan - Bilangan saksi Pendakwaan yang dipanggil - inferens di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 1 Isu Undang-Undang - Pengemukaan rakaman CCTV - Sijil di bawah seksyen 90A Akta Keterangan 1950 1 Criminal Trial - s.302 Penal Code - Accused who was the husband of the deceased shot the deceasead with his air rifle while she was sleeping - He proceeded to smother the deceased by closing her nose and mouth until she died - He put the body into a big Tong and buried the Tong in the plantation 1 Accused pleaded guilty in the midst of the examination in chief of the neighbour SP5 by the prosecution - sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of rotan 1 Criminal Trial - s.302 Penal Code - A love story involving a young couple with a tragic ending. In the heat of a quarrel over sex, the accused stabbed and killed the deceased. The Prosecution reduced the charge to s 304 (a) PC and the accused pleaded guilty- sentenced to 6 years and 6 months of imprisonment. 1 Appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court on quantum. 1 General and Special damages 1 Principle governing the appellate court’s intervention. 1 Defamation Claim – Defendant’s appeal against decision of Sessions Court – Principles Applicable as to Appellate Intervention – Section 73A (A) of the Evidence Act 1950 – Award of Global Damages neither excessive nor exorbitant 1 Insurance – Motor insurance – Construction of policy – Policy provided that the insurer would indemnify the owner of the lorry and any authorized driver against third-party risks. 1 Policy exempted insurer from liability if death or bodily injury caused to any person employed by the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment. 1 The lorry owner’s employee, travelling in an insured vehicle driven by an authorized driver died due to the driver’s negligence 1 Representative of the deceased’s estate sued both the lorry owner and the authorized driver in respect of damages. 1 Whether the insurer’s argument that it was exempt from liability because the deceased was an employee was only valid via-à-vis its contract with the lorry owner, but not its contract with the authorized driver, who was not the employer. 1 Administrative law : Dismissal of a workman Administrative law : Section 14(1) Employment Act 1955 - whether domestic inquiry must be established for charges abandon by the employer Whether domestic injury must be established when the workman pleads guilty to a charge which amounts to misconduct. Habitual late coming to work - whether amounts to misconduct Whether Labor Court erred i law and fact in arriving at the decision 1 Limitation Act 1953 – Cause of action against the deceased estate on a friendly loan – Whether time–barred – Applicability of Sections 6, 19, 23, and 24 of the Limitation Act 1953. O 15 r 6A(1) rules of Court 2012 – Proceedings against estates. O 18 r 19 Rules of High Court – Application to strike out statement of claim. 1 Full trial – Family dispute over properties – Parties involved in the family business - Plaintiff is the father – The 1st Defendant is the eldest son – The 2nd Defendant is the wife – The Plaintiff handed over the management of the family business and properties to the 1st Defendant in exchange for retiring from the family business and receiving a monetary contribution of love and affection – The Plaintiff transferred his properties to the Defendants, with consideration stated as love and affection – Some years later, the Plaintiff stopped receiving the monetary contribution from the 1st Defendant, prompting him to demand the return of the properties transferred to the Defendants – After a long period of silence, the Plaintiff alleges that the properties were fraudulently transferred by the Defendants – The Plaintiff claims to be unaware and has no knowledge of the transfer documents executed by him - He pleads non est factum – Whether non est factum is pleaded – The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants abused the trust he had placed in them by deceiving him into signing the transfer documents as if they were company documents – The Plaintiff asserts he never executed any documents before a lawyer - Hence, the attestation clause in the memorandum of transfer is false – Whether this amounts to an insufficient instrument of transfer under s. 340(2)(b) NLC – Whether this issue is pleaded - Or whether the Plaintiff transferred the properties voluntarily to the Defendants – And in fact, there was consideration for the transfer – There is inconsistent evidence concerning the payment of the contribution to the Plaintiff - The parties and their witnesses were not truthful about the details of the contribution – Whether the Plaintiff’s remedy lies in claiming for the contribution from the Defendants. 1 Full trial – The claim concerns practices within the liquefied petroleum gas industry (LPG) – The Plaintiff is an LPG supplier – The Defendants are LPG distributors - The Plaintiff claims against the Defendants for the wrongful detention of their gas cylinders, based on the tort of detinue – Additionally, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction for the delivery of their gas cylinders, damages for unlawful interference with the Plaintiff’s trade, and compensation for loss of profits – The Defendants counterclaim for transportation charges, storage costs, security charges, and damages in the event the interim injunction is set aside – Existence of industry practice regarding exchange and buy-back of cylinders - The industry practice was recognised in Solar Gas Sdn Bhd v NGC Energy Sdn Bhd [2023] 8 CLJ 778 - Whether, based on this industry practice, the Plaintiff has the immediate right to possession of their gas cylinders - Whether the industry practice vitiates the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for unlawful detention – Whether there was any intent on the part of the Defendants to injure the Plaintiff by interfering with their trade or business – The Defendants did not adhere to the industry practice – Whether the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to relief for the exchange and buy-back of the gas cylinders from the Defendants - Whether the Defendants have proven their counterclaim for transportation costs – Whether the Defendants are entitled to counterclaim for the storage costs and security charges, given the mechanisms of the industry practice. 1 Full trial – Contractual claim – Construction works – Dispute between developer and main contractor - Termination by main contractor – Alleging non-payment of progress claims – Developer contends payment yet to be due and main contractor breached the contract – By stopping work and abandoning the site - Whether progressive claims due as at date of termination by main contractor - Whether termination by main contractor lawful – Developer claims additional cost for engaging new contractor – Whether main contractor liable for additional cost to complete the project - Whether developer entitled to the additional cost on the value of works already completed by main contractor - In addition to the additional cost on the works yet to be completed – Main contractor counter claims against developer - Balance due for value of works as at date of termination – Whether Developer admitted to balance sums due to main contractor. 1 Practice and procedure – Pleading evidence, inferences and submissions – Offending the Rules on Pleading – Difficult to determine the real issues between the parties- Pleading lacks clarity and precision - On the real matters in controversy between the parties – The correct approach and practice concerning pleadings - Order 18 Rule 7 ROC, 2012. 1 Civil action - Family dispute amongst siblings – Over their late mother’s ½ share in a landed property – A memorandum of transfer initially executed by their late mother – To transfer her said ½ share to the 2nd Plaintiff – In consideration of love and affection – The transfer to be presented only after 100 days upon her death - Whether the memorandum of transfer voluntarily and validly executed – Whether the late mother understood the contents of the transfer form – Whether it was executed under undue influence - Whether the transfer was revoked during her lifetime – Whether she had become a bare trustee to the 2nd Plaintiff - Thereafter their late mother made and executed her last will and testament – Leaving her ½ share to the Defendant instead as the beneficiary – Whether her last will and testament valid – Whether the essence of the Defendant’s defence is propounding the will - Whether the deceased had the testamentary capacity – Whether due execution of the will proven – The burden of establishing extraneous vitiating element to challenge the will is on the Plaintiffs -Whether there was any undue influence in execution of the will – Whether the Court can be concerned with the fairness of the will - Whether any suspicious circumstances exists surrounding the making of the will - Whether the Defendant succeeded in dispelling the suspicious circumstances. 1 Applications to intervene - Foreclosure proceeding - To stay the auction proceedings arising thereon and completion of judicial sale – Pending disposal of the Proposed Intervener’s appeal to the Court of Appeal – Against the dismissal of a civil suit to recover the property - Whether proprietary right exists to intervene – Whether lodgment of Private Caveats by the Proposed Intervener adequate notice of their pending claim- Order for sale drawn up and perfected - Whether Court is functus officio at this stage – Whether the Proposed Intervener has to file a fresh action instead - Whether the Federal Court’s decision in HLBB v Staghorn Sdn Bhd is binding on the facts in the present case - Whether the Proposed Intervener could seek reliefs to invalidate and annul the auction and sale at this stage - Whether the applications filed in the correct proceeding. 1 Constitutional Law: Citizenship by operation of law – Illegitimate child – Jus sanguinis – Subsequent legal marriage of illegitimate child’s parents – Whether child acquires father’s citizenship by descent and qualifies for Malaysian citizenship – Federal Constitution, Art 14(1)(b). 1 Words and Phrases – Definition of “parent” of illegitimate child – Whether refers to mother or biological father – Federal Constitution Second Schedule, s17. 1 Constitutional Law: Citizenship by naturalization – Federal Constitution, Art 19 – Prerogative of the power is vested with the Federal Government. 1 Conflict of laws – Choice of jurisdiction – Accident in Malaysia – Plaintiff resident and Singapore citizen – Whether Singapore or Malaysia is the more appropriate forum – Singapore proceedings were properly instituted and within jurisdiction. 1 Whether the Defendants’ declaration application in Malaysia amounts to a collateral attack on ongoing foreign proceedings, and whether Defendants should contest jurisdiction within the prescribed timelines in the Singapore proceedings. 1 Constitutional Law: - Citizenship by operation of law – Illegitimate child – Whether an illegitimate child at the time of birth qualifies for citizenship by operation of law – Federal Constitution, Art 14(1)(b). 1 Family Law – Children – Adoption – Whether making of adoption order entitled adopted child to be registered as Malaysian citizen as of right and/or by operation of law – Federal Constitution, art 14(1)(b) – no retrospective effect of legitimacy. 1 Words and Phrases: “any newborn child found exposed in any place” – Section 19B of Part III of Second Schedule of Federal Constitution – Whether birth mother presumed to be Malaysian – Whether child entitled to citizenship by operation of law by virtue of s. 1(a) of Part II read together with s. 19B Part III of Second Schedule of Federal Constitution. 1 Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Restriction order under S. 6(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. 1 Failure to exercise mind when issuing a restriction order – Two reporting locations appear. 1 Errors in the affidavit require a corrective affidavit, a narcotic police officer as interpreter, which creates a reasonable bias. 1 No consistent and uniform process for investigation under the Act during the investigation and inquiry process. 1 semakan kehakiman - satu perintah cetiorari mempunyai merit - permohonan ditolak dengan kos - RM5000 kepada responden pertama 1 Criminal Appeal - Decision from the Magistrate’s Court - Charge under s. 135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 – For loading prohibited goods onto a motorcar - Accused discharged and acquitted end of prosecution’s case - Prosecution appealed to the High Court – High Court ordered accused to enter his defence – Burden to rebut the statutory presumption – Under s. 135 (2) Customs Act 1967 on the accused – On a balance of probabilities - Accused’s defence – He has no knowledge of the prohibited goods - He was asked by his employer to drive the employer’s motorcar from Kulai to Batu Pahat – No prohibited goods in the motorcar along the journey - Employer asked the accused to park the motorcar park behind a restaurant – And not to lock the motorcar and leave the keys inside – Accused heard employer taking over the phone asking his workers to load goods into the motorcar – Accused's defence corroborated by friend’s evidence - Who followed him in the motorcar and was at the restaurant – Customs aware motorcar does not belong to the accused and belongs to one Chok Yuk Fui - Failure by Customs to locate and investigate the owner concerning the prohibited goods - Relevance of the words “minta settle” uttered by the accused during the raid to the Raiding officer – Whether accused’s defence rebutted the Prosecution’s case on the balance of probabilities – Prosecution failed to file written submissions – Despite Court giving extensions – Subsequently only incomplete submissions filed - Failure to serve the written submissions on the accused – Court not having the benefit of the prosecutions’ reasons attacking the Magistrate’s findings and decision - Whether the Magistrate erred in her findings - Principles of appellate intervention 1 Rayuan terhadap penolakan permohonan di bawah Seksyen 80(3) Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 (APAD) 2010) 1 Budi bicara untuk kembalikan kenderaan yang disita – faktor-faktor yang perlu diambil kira. 1 Jaminan dan syarat-syarat yang perlu diikuti sebelum pelepasan. 1 ROAD TRAFFIC: Accident – causing death by reckless or dangerous driving 1 The accused was charged under s. 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 – Whether ingredients of charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt 1 Criminal Procedure – Appeal against conviction and sentence 1 Criminal Procedure – Section 316(b)(ii) CPC read together with section 167 CPC – Whether the conviction of the appellant ought to be substituted for the conviction under s 43(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 1 Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Whether a custodial sentence is appropriate, considering it is not a premeditated offence. 1 Criminal Procedure – Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appellant charged under s. 14(a) of Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017. 1 - Appellant convicted and sentenced to four years imprisonment and two strokes of whipping – Whether appeal against conviction ought to be allowed. 1 - Whether sentence imposed manifestly inadequate or grossly excessive or wrong in law – Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 s. 14(a) 1 Rayuan daripada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen – Pihak Pendakwa gagal membuktikan kes prima facie – Tuduhan memiliki dadah – Kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Akses tempat kejadian tidak terhad kepada kedua-dua tertuduh – Penemuan fakta dan kredibiliti saksi oleh Hakim perbicaraan. 1 CRIMINAL LAW – Dangerous Drugs – Trafficking charge – Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 -Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs – Accused seen driving a motorcar - Entering the toll plaza – During implementation of the Movement Control Order - Was asked to stop by police for inspection – Did not have a valid permit to cross border – Accused alone in the motorcar – Drugs found inside the shoe on the footrest of the back passenger seat – Accused seated in the driver’s seat – Accused in close proximity with the drugs - Direct evidence of possession – Conduct of the accused looking worried, afraid, concealing something and unable to answer question - Whether knowledge of the drugs can be inferred from conduct of the accused – Whether third party could have accessed the motorcar – Inconsistencies in the Raiding Officer’s evidence – Absence of DNA and fingerprint evidence of the accused - Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Defence – Whether the accused version is probable – Accused borrowed the motorcar from a friend – Motorcar was handed over to the accused by friend’s wife – Accused claims the shoe does not belong to him - The shoe does not fit the accused – Accused seated in front in the driver’s seat- Could not have seen and known the presence of drugs inside the shoe – Located underneath the front passenger seat on the footrest of the back passenger seat - Whether the accused’s version cast reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case – Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted on the balance of probabilities. 1 Seksyen 39B(1)(A) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. 1 Tertuduh kedua dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan. 1 Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan – gagal dibuktikan. 1 No presumption of common intention. 1 Tiada keterangan ada perancangan di antara tertuduh pertama dan kedua. 1 Tiada perbuatan atau tingkah laku tertuduh kedua yang boleh dikaitkan dengan kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan tentang dadah yang disembunyikan. 1 CRIMINAL LAW – Dangerous Drugs – Trafficking charge – Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 -Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs – Accused seen driving a motorcar - Was asked to stop by police – Refused to stop and sped off leading to a 100km chase – Accused alone in the motorcar – Drugs found on the footrest of the front passenger seat – Accused seated on the driver’s seat – Accused in close proximity with the drugs - Direct evidence of possession – Whether knowledge of the drugs can be inferred from conduct of the accused - Refusing to stop the motorcar and speeding off – To avoid inspection by the police - Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Defence – Whether the accused version is probable – Accused provides transportation to a Malay friend dealing in traditional medicines – Accused claims the drugs belongs to the Malay friend and has no knowledge of the drugs – The Malay friend was arrested and investigated – But no charges preferred against him - The Malay friend offered to the accused as a witness – Failure by prosecution to secure attendance of the Malay friend – Bounden duty of the prosecution to avail witnesses offered to the defence – Whether this legal principle to be applied in a vacuum and blanketly - Whether an adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114 (g) Evidence Act 1950 - Whether the accused’s version cast reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case – Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted on the balance of probabilities. 1 CRIMINAL LAW – Dangerous Drugs – Trafficking charge – Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether possession proven - Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs – Deemed possession – Deemed knowledge – Presumption under section 37 (d) DDA 1952 - Accused seen coming from the direction of his bedroom – Drugs discovered on the mattress in the accused’s bedroom – Drugs also discovered in the storeroom - At the bottom of the water boiler placed upside down – Whether evidence of the raiding officer credible - Similar type of drugs and packaging – Weight of drugs found in both rooms are close – Drugs were not hidden or concealed – The drugs can be easily seen by the accused – Accused and his wife are the only tenant and occupier of the house - Evidence from the accused’s wife – On the occupancy of the rooms in the house – Accused alone in the house at the time of the raid - Whether accused was trafficking the drugs – Section 2 DDA 1952 – Whether accused’s conduct in keeping or storing the drugs amounts to trafficking. 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Defence – Accused does not know about the drugs -The drugs belong to two of the accused’s friends – The friends came to the house regularly to hang out – The motorcar and motorbike parked at the porch belong to his friends – The friends have access to the accused’s house - The friends removed the motorcar and the motorbike after the accused was arrested – The accused daughter have seen these friends in the accused’s house – Going into the accused’s bedroom - And saw them driving the motorcar and riding the motorbike – Whether the daughter’s evidence corroborates the accused’s version – Whether the daughter is an interested witness – The accused unable to contact these friends after his arrest – Whether the accused defence is a bare assertion and afterthought – Belated disclosure of the names of his friends by the accused - Whether the accused has rebutted the presumption of possession on the balance of probabilities – Whether the accused has cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case for trafficking the drugs. 1 CRIMINAL LAW – Dangerous Drugs – Trafficking charge – Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether possession proven – Whether accused had custody and control of the drugs - Whether accused had knowledge of the drugs – Drugs found in the motorcar boot – Inside the spare tyre compartment – Motorcar driven by the accused – Accused had borrowed the motorcar from a friend – Motorcar purchased by the friend’s brother in law – For the friend’s use to deliver dialysis machine – In the course of employment with the brother in law’s company - Whether accused had prior custody and control of the motorcar – Before the accused was arrested – Motorcar and the keys were kept by friend at his apartment – Friend was the last person who drove the motorcar - Before handing it to the accused - Whether friend had absolute custody and control of the motorcar - Whether Prosecution successfully excluded possibility of other individuals having access to the motorcar – Immediately prior to the accused’s arrest – Whether mere evidence of the accused driving the motorcar - Momentarily with drugs inside the spare tyre compartment – Sufficient to prove accused had custody and control of the drugs – Accused attempted to use friend’s travel document – To deceive the police to pass through the road block during the Movement Control Order - Whether the accused looking surprise, scared and worried – Sufficient to infer the accused having knowledge of the drugs – Whether presumption of trafficking can be invoked - Whether upon a maximum evaluation of the evidence – The Prosecution has produced credible evidence to establish a prima facie case. 1 CRIMINAL LAW – Dangerous Drugs – Trafficking charge – Section 39(B) (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Possession - Whether accused had custody and control and knowledge of the drugs – Direct evidence - Accused seen standing alone carrying a bag – In front of a hut at night - Accused tried to escape when confronted by the police – Accused did no cooperate with the police - Police found the bag held by the accused to contain drugs – Accused caught red-handed by the police – Whether statements by the accused in the course of police investigation admissible – Section 112, 113 CPC and Section 37B DDA 1952. Accused had custody and control of the drugs – Accused had knowledge of the drugs - Accused had mens rea possession – Whether presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da)(xvi) DDA, 1952 proven. 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Defence – A case of mistaken identity – It was not the accused who was standing in front of the hut holding the bag containing drugs – The accused a crew member of a ship on which he arrived from Indonesia – Accused was on board the ship at the material time – Accused resting on the ship at the time during the raid - The other crew members had disembarked the ship – Leaving the accused and one Anto to look after the ship – Suddenly the accused heard a loud noise crying for help – Accused saw Anto running towards the ship chased by the police – Accused was arrested on board the ship and not in front of the hut – Thereafter accused was brought to the hut by the police and shown the bag containing drugs - Accused failed to call the captain of the ship to corroborate the existence of Anto - Whether the accused version that he saw Anto running towards the ship chased by the police probable – Whether the accused version he was arrested on board the ship probable - Whether there was a case of mistaken identity - Whether the accused’s version cast a reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case – Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted on the balance of probabilities. 1 Murder – Penal Code S. 299, 300, 302 – Whether elements under S. 300 established – Intention – Accused stabbed both victims with a “parang” – Whether intended to cause death – Whether injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – Whether the accused person had knowledge that death would be the likely result – Whether prosecution must prove intention to cause death – Or whether sufficient to prove intention to inflict fatal injuries – Whether absence of the accused DNA and fingerprint fatal – Whether failure to adduce CCTV recording fatal. 1 Defence – Abnormality of mind - Accused suffering from Intermittent Explosive Disorder – Whether this condition - Substantially impairs the accused mental responsibility or causes diminished responsibility – At the time of committing the offence – Whether it falls under S. 84 Penal Code for protection – Threshold of legal insanity for S. 84 – The applicable test for defence of legal insanity - Decision of the Federal Court in PP v Mohd Rozani Yahya [2025] 2 CLJ 21 - Whether the accused has succeeded in discharging the burden on the balance of probabilities – Whether accused has raised a reasonable doubt. 1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: - 1 Sentence – Death sentence – Exercise of discretion – Not to impose sentence of imprisonment – Whether falls under exceptional case - Murder of two innocent victims – Victims unknown to the accused - Multiple incise wounds on the face – Three stab wounds on the chest – Accused went looking for victims to inflict injuries. 1 Citizenship — Operation of law — Respondent born in Malaysia to a Malaysian biological father and a Thai mother — Parents not legally married at the time of birth — Whether respondent is an illegitimate child — Interpretation of Article 14(1)(b) read with Section 1(a), Part II of the Second Schedule and Section 17, Part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution — Principle of jus sanguinis — Whether citizenship of an illegitimate child follows the mother — Binding effect of the Federal Court decision in Chan Tai Ern Bermillo [2021]. National Registration — Identity Card (NRIC) — Replacement of lost NRIC — Investigation by National Registration Department (NRD) into citizenship status — Cancellation of NRIC and issuance of a new birth certificate reflecting non-citizen status — Whether the NRD acted ultra vires — Burden of proving the truth of NRIC contents — Regulation 24 of the National Registration Regulations 1990 — Whether a MyKad/NRIC is conclusive proof of citizenship status. Deprivation of citizenship — Procedure for deprivation — Articles 26 and 27 of the Federal Constitution — Citizenship Rules 1964 — Whether deprivation procedures apply to a person who never qualified for citizenship by operation of law or registration — Distinction between revocation of an improperly issued document and deprivation of validly acquired citizenship. Burden of proof — Citizenship status — Burden on the applicant to prove the truth of the contents of an identity card under Regulation 24 of the National Registration Regulations 1990 — Failure to provide documentary evidence of citizenship by registration — Application of Sections 101, 102, and 103 of the Evidence Act 1950. "Parents" — "Father" — Interpretation in the context of illegitimate children under Section 17, Part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution — "Warganegara" status on NRIC — "Citizenship by operation of law". 1 allegation of judgment obtained by fraud – Power of Attorney – Memorandum of Transfer – National Land Code 2020 (Act 828) – Malay Reservation Land – Trust – Whether or not transferee is a Malay – Statutory Declaration as evidence for being Malay - Signed before Commissioner for Oaths – allegation of forged documents – s 2 of Kedah Reservations Enactment No. 3 – Definition of Malay – Fresh action to impeach and set aside earlier judgment – positive fraud – actual pre-meditated positive fraud - s 44 of Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56) - Status of Commissioner for Oaths – Office of the Chief Registrar of Federal Court – Sijil Kewarganegaraan – National Registration Department 1 Pantai Chenang Beach, Langkawi; local authority, breach of statutory duties; breach of duty of care; Local Government Act 1976 section 101 (b), (c), (cc) (i); statutory duty to supervise, maintain trees and trim and remove trees endangering public safety. 1 Issue: Whether the High Court erred in concluding that the Agreement had not been frustrated and that clause 2.1(d) had been fulfilled. 1 Appellant’s Arguments: (i) Frustration doctrine applies – MOF cancelled the funds that YaPEIM needed to pay for the shares – The Agreement made no provision for this situation – The event was beyond the appellant’s control and made performance impossible under Section 57 CA 1950 – The Agreement should be void, entitling the appellant to a refund of the deposit (Section 66 CA 1950). 1 (ii) Clause 2.1(d) not fulfilled – Required government approval (MOF) – Since MOF did not approve funding, the condition was not satisfied – Appellant’s solicitors never confirmed the fulfilment of conditions precedent. 1 Court’s Findings: (i) No Frustration of contract – The obligation to pay remained with the appellant, not YaPEIM – YaPEIM’s failure to secure MOF funds was self-induced (MOF revoked approval due to non-compliance) – Self-induced frustration is not frustration. 1 (ii) Clause 2.1(d) was fulfilled – MOF’s approval was not required under this clause – the Agreement concerned a private sale, and MOF had no jurisdiction over it – The appellant warranted in Clause 4 that all required approvals were secured. 1 (iii) Deposit Rightfully Forfeited – Clause 5.4 allowed the respondents to forfeit the RM1,000,000 deposit – The amount was reasonable and appropriate. 1 Conclusion: The trial Judge’s factual findings were not plainly erroneous and that no errors which would warrant appellate intervention – Appeal dismissed – RM20,000 costs awarded to the Respondents, subject to allocator – the High Court’s decision was upheld. 1 Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman – Pertuduhan kesalahan membunuh di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan – Sama ada pihak pendakwaan dikatakan gagal membuktikan bahawa Perayu telah mengakibatkan bencana tubuh yang dialami oleh si mati – Ketiadaan saksi mata – Sama ada YA HMT telah terkhilaf dalam menerima doktrin “last seen together” - Terdapat “proximity of time gap” – Sama ada YA HMT terkhilaf dalam menerima keterangan DNA si mati yang dijumpai pada pakaian Perayu 1 Parole Evidence Rule - Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 - limited to document relating to the terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property mutually agreed upon by the parties - prevent a party to vary, add to or contract those agreed terms using parole (oral) evidence - mere absence of the First Information Report is not in itself a valid ground to dismiss a case or to prevent the police from investigating - Competing Narratives - section 134 of the Evidence Act 1950 - Credibility of the Witnesses - section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 - adverse inference - subsequent behaviour or conduct the accused – section 8 and 14 of the Evidence Act 1950 - non-production of pocket diary did not diminish the weight and credibility of the of witness - fingerprint lifting and DNA evidential status is merely of corroborative value - evidence against the accused was overwhelming and the accused identity was never in doubt - Failure to Appreciate the Defence – trial judge not misdirected in law and in fact - Improper Use of Presumption - section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 or section 37(da) of the said Act - whether the learned trial judge erred in invoking the presumption under section 37(da) in respect of the charge against the accused? - no appealable errors on the part of the trial judge when invoked the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) - direct evidence of the act of ‘carrying’ clearly defined as trafficking under section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 1 Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Seksyen 3(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakan Harta) 1988 – pengakuan salah – Tertuduh memahami sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah – Seksyen 178(2) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – faktor-faktor yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Hakim Bicara sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman – pertimbangan yang adil dan saksama antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan Tertuduh sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman 1 Appeal from decision of the Sessions Court - set aside and/or stay the execution of the Writ of Possession 1 Consent Judgment entered between parties - delay by the Appelant in paying the final instalment 1 The law on appeal - appellate court will not interfere with findings - unless has plainly gone wrong 1 Issue - the enforcement of the Consent Judgment - may be executed by way of a Writ of Possession. 1 TORT: Defamation – Libel – Social media publication (TikTok) – Allegation of sending pornographic videos (‘video ghairah’) and committing adultery (‘zina’) – Whether words imputed actual guilt or mere suspicion – Chase Levels – Whether imputation fell within Chase Level 1 – Defence of Justification – Respondent admitted video was not obscene – Whether defence of Justification sustainable – Defence of Fair Comment – Whether comment based on untrue facts serves as valid defence – Qualified Privilege – Reply to attack – Whether counter-allegations of immorality were disproportionate to the provocation – Whether malice established – Recklessness in publishing known falsehoods CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Appellate intervention – Findings of fact – Standard of review – ‘Plainly wrong’ test – Trial judge failed to appreciate fatal admission by Respondent – Whether appellate court can disturb findings on credibility where documentary evidence contradicts oral testimony CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings – Counterclaim – Requirement to plead defamatory words ad verbatim – Failure to particularise impugned words – Whether counterclaim ought to be dismissed in limine DAMAGES: Quantum – Assessment – Global sum – Principles in awarding global sum for general and aggravated damages – Avoidance of double counting – Deterrence against cyber-bullying – Public policy considerations regarding social media toxicity 1 Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) — Originating Summons (OS) — Amendment — Mandatory Leave to Amend — O.20 r.5 ROC 2012 — O.20 r.7 ROC 2012 — Strict Compliance — Intitulement Rule — O.7 r.2(1A) ROC 2012 — Defective Intitulement — Striking Out — Procedural Flaw — Substantive Procedural Flaw — Tactical Maneuver — Lack of Bona Fides — Overreach — Non-curability — Suitability of Originating Summons Contractual Interpretation and Landlord-Tenant Law • Tenancy Agreement — Commercial Lease — Mandatory Renewal Clause — Termination Clause — Conflicting Clauses — Contractual Ambiguity — Schedule Entry ‘Nil’ — Objective Intention of Parties — Commercial Common Sense — Contra Proferentum Rule — Principle of Bona Fides / Good Faith. • Termination of Tenancy — Notice of Termination — Defective Notice — Alleged Sham Transaction 1 Rayuan Perayu dalam kes di Mahkamah Sesyen - Sama ada Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dalam menerima dan menandakan dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif di hadapannya - dokumen-dokumen yang telah diterima sebagai keterangan di Mahkamah Sesyen tidak sepatutnya dibenarkan - sebahagian besar dokumen tersebut tidak ditandatangani oleh Responden, tidak dibuktikan asal-usulnya, dan tidak ditandakan melalui pembuat yang sebenar - bercanggah dengan prinsip asas undang-undang keterangan yang mewajibkan pembuktian dokumen mengikut kehendak Akta Keterangan 1950 - Sama ada Mahkamah Sesyen tersalah arah dalam menilai keterangan saksi-saksi - Sama ada Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan boleh mencampuri dapatan fakta Mahkamah Sesyen - Sama ada terdapat salah arah undang-undang yang nyata yang mewajarkan campur tangan. 1 Appeal arises from the decision of the Sessions Court - Plaintif's claim against 2nd & 3rd Defendants was allowed - 2nd & 3rd dissatisfied with that outcome. 1 The law on appeal - not interfere with the findings of fact - unless the trial court plainly gone wrong. 1 The finding fails to give sufficient attention to the following stipulations in the documentary evidence - there is another document which was not reffered to - Failure to refer to the further exclusions - issue of privity of contract. 1 Unjust enrichment - matter was not pleaded - parties are bound by their pleadings. 1 The appeal is allowed - Plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Notice of Appeal – Preliminary Objection – Use of Form 111 instead of Form 111A – Whether technical non-compliance fatal to appeal – Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A – Overriding interest of justice – Waiver of objection CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata – Cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel – Previous suit against main contractor regarding same project – Subsequent suit against Government for same professional fees – Whether issues of liability and quantum finally adjudicated – Litigation by instalments – Abuse of process – Asia Commercial Finance principle CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory proceedings – Striking out – Effect of dismissal of striking out application – Whether trial judge precluded from revisiting defence of res judicata at full trial – Distinction between summary determination and trial findings – Lin Wen-Chih (FC) applied CONTRACT: Privity of contract – Professional consultancy services – Design and Build procurement model – Consultant absorbed into main contractor’s organisation – Claim for fees against Employer (Government) – Absence of direct contractual nexus – Whether Government liable for fees – Mutual termination agreement with main contractor EVIDENCE: Standard of proof – Claim for 80% completion of consultancy work – Finding of fact by trial court – Oral admission by witness regarding scope of drawings – Appellate intervention – “Plainly wrong” test 1 Real Property Gains Tax (RPGT)-- Assessment—Notice of Assessment—Setting aside assessment based on erroneous primary facts. Real Property Gains Tax (RPGT)-- Market value (MV)—Determination of acquisition price—Inconsistency in valuation by revenue body. Real Property Gains Tax (RPGT) -- Acquisition date—Determination for non-citizen beneficiary—Effect of State Authority consent on registration date. Tax appeal—High Court jurisdiction—Review of SCIT decision. Tax appeal -- Findings of fact—Intervention by High Court—Error of law arising from inconsistent facts. Tax appeal -- Principle of Edwards v Bairstow—Conclusion inconsistent with primary facts. Statutory Interpretation -- Taxing statute—Rule of strict construction—Ambiguity resolved in favour of taxpayer. Land Law -- Non-citizen acquisition of land—Requirement for State Authority approval—Section 433B National Land Code (NLC). 1 rujukan tanah; bantahan pampasan; seksyen 38(5) akta pengambilan tanah 1960; proviso subseksyen 49(1) APT 1960; Calamas Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Batang Padang [2011] 5 CLJ 125; [2011] 1 MLRA 239; 1 Rujukan Tanah - seksyen 38(1) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (Akta 460) - Pemohon membantah award pampadan Pentadbir Tanah - Undang-undang - Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan Beban Pembuktian - Pemohon - Tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Tuntutan Penjejasan Tanah Baki (Pecah Pisah) & Kesan Penjejasan - Tuntutan masuk awal - award 1 Permohonan Rujukan Tanah - seksyen 38(1) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (Aka 460). 1 Undang-undang berkaitan - Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. 1 Beban Pembuktian - ke atas Pemohon - beban untuk mewujudkan kes - beban untuk mengemukakan keterangan 1 Kos Sampingan (Incidental Cost) - Pampasan yuran guaman - pampasan ke atas struktur bangunan - pampasan ke atas cukai pajakan. 1 LAND LAW: Indefeasibility of title — Fraud — Allegation that transfer of land was a loan disguised as a sale — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Whether plaintiff established actual fraud or conspiracy — Whether full purchase consideration sum has been paid — Protection under proviso to s 340(3) of National Land Code — Caveat — Private caveat — Lodged by registered proprietor on own land — Whether registered proprietor has caveatable interest — Validity of caveat — National Land Code ss 323(1), 340(2) & (3) CONTRACT: Validity — Sale and purchase agreement — Execution — Non est factum — Plaintiff alleged lack of understanding and illiteracy — Plaintiff affixed thumbprint to documents witnessed by solicitor — Whether plaintiff bound by documents executed — Whether plea of non est factum sustainable where documents were explained — Estoppel — Conduct — Plaintiff accepted part payment and negotiated cancellation — Whether plaintiff estopped from rescinding contract — Contracts Act 1950 TORT: Negligence — Professional negligence — Solicitor — Duty of care — Preparation and attestation of sale and purchase agreement — Allegation of failure to explain documents — Standard of care of reasonably competent solicitor — Solicitor halting registration upon notice of dispute — Whether duty of care breached — Statutory duty — Land Administrator — Registration of transfer — Whether Land Administrator negligent in registering transfer despite existence of private caveat — Administrative duty under National Land Code s 324 EVIDENCE: Burden of proof — Fraud — Standard of proof — Balance of probabilities — Necessity for clear and cogent evidence — Contemporaneous documentary evidence vs oral testimony — Whether documentary evidence of payment and execution outweighed oral assertion of loan — Evidence Act 1950 s 101 1 ISLAMIC FINANCE - Sale - based financing - Murabahah - Home financing - i Facility - Ibra' (Rebate) - Mandatory vs. Discreionary - Regulator compliance - Bank Negara Malaysia Guidelines - Pleadings - Statement of Claim - Substantive legal necessity - Maqasid al-Shari'ah 1 Jurisdiction - Civil Court - Shariah Court - Jurisdictional Overlap - Double Proceedings - Joint Fixed Deposit Account - Survivorship Clause - Right of Survivorship - Hibah (Gift) - Pemberian Ikhlas - Alang Semasa Hidup - Shariah Courts (Kedah Darul Aman) Enactment 2008 -Faraid - Islamic Inheritance Law - Estate of the Deceased - Probate and Administration - Sijil Faraid - Contract Law - Breach of Contract - Federal List - State List - Undue influence - Cognitive Capacity - Muslim and Non-Muslim Parties - Corporate Entity - Shariah Advisory Council (SAC) - Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) - Conventional Banking - Islamic Banking - Central Bank Act of Malaysia 2009 1 permohonan Plaintif bagi suatu deklarasi bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli (“PJB”) berserta Surat Kuasa Wakil (SKW”), kedua-duanya bertarikh 18.3.2016 yang dimasuki oleh Plaintif dan Defendan menjadi terbatal, dan kaveat persendirian yang dimasuki oleh Defendan terhadap hartanah yang terlibat dalam PJB itu dipotong. Bersampingan dengan itu juga Plaintif memohon supaya suratan hakmilik asal hartanah tersebut dikembalikan dan perintah supaya suatu ganti rugi kemungkiran PJB yang dimasuki itu dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif. 1 AND LAW: Indefeasibility of title – Registered proprietor – Immediate purchaser – Application for vacant possession – Whether title obtained by fraud or misrepresentation – Standard of proof for fraud – Exceptions to indefeasibility – National Land Code, s. 340(1), (2) & (3) LAND LAW: Instrument of transfer – Form 14A – Validity – Purchase price under-declared for stamp duty purposes – Whether under-stamping renders instrument “void or insufficient” under s. 340(2)(b) National Land Code – Distinction between statutory non-compliance under National Land Code and revenue irregularity under Stamp Act 1949 – Curability of defect – Duty of court to impound – Stamp Act 1949, ss. 51 & 52 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings – Parties bound by pleadings – Defence raising unpleaded issue of illegality (stamp duty evasion) – Trial by ambush – Res judicata – Issue estoppel – Previous Originating Summons for removal of private caveats – Whether determination of interest in summary proceedings bars re-litigation of trust claim EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Failure to call material witnesses – Parties to the suit (1st and 3rd Defendants) failed to testify – Withholding of independent witnesses to alleged trust – Presumption under s. 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 – Burden of proof – Constructive trust 1 Land Law - Co-proprietorship: Undivided land - Undivided shares - Tenancy-in-common - National Land Code (NLC): Section 342 - Section 343 - Possession and Enjoyment: Co-owner’s entitlement to possession and enjoyment of the whole land - Exclusive Possession: Claim for exclusive possession of a specific portion of undivided land - Whether undivided share confers right to exclusive possession - Communal Arrangement: Long-standing communal arrangement among co-owners - Mutual understanding regarding physical apportionment and demarcation - Effect of communal agreement on co-proprietorship - Transfer of Interest: Whether subsequent owner/newcomer bound by existing communal agreement Trial & Evidence – Expert Evidence – Evidence from long-time residents Equity- Recognition of arrangements between co-owners in an undivided land - Unjustness of reneging on long-standing arrangements - Principles ‘substantially equitable’ Caveat Emptor - Application to purchaser of undivided share who failed to confirm physical plot location Civil Procedure - Locus Standi - Deceased Estate: Claim involving estate of a deceased co-owner - Personal Representative: Status of personal representative in the absence of a Letter of Administration (LA)- Beneficiary: Locus standi of a beneficiary to contest a claim - Right to take legal steps to protect/preserve estate property in the absence of LA - Technicality: Whether absence of LA is a mere technicality barring judgment in favor of the defendant/beneficiary 1 gangguan seksual di sekolah; amang seksual di sekolah; bertanggungan secara vikarius; penafian kosong semata-mata; 1 The disputes concern a quarry extraction arrangement executed by the parties under a written Contract for Extraction relating to quarry land. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had breached its obligations under the said contract by failing to commence and perform extraction work, and seeks damages for loss of profit and termination of the agreement. The Defendant, in turn, alleges that the contract was illegal or void for want of proper licences and has counterclaimed for restitution and damages. The key issues requiring determination - whether the Contract for Extraction was illegal or void for lack of requisite quarry or explosives licences - whether the contract was frustrated and thereby discharged under Section 57(2) of the Contracts Act 1950 - whether either party is entitled to relief or damages for breach. Court finds that the contract was rendered incapable of lawful performance due to frustration, and that both parties are accordingly discharged from further obligations under it. The Plaintiff’s claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim are therefore dismissed. 1 Contract Law - Sale Agreement - Specific performance - Power of Attorney - Validity - Malay Reserve Land - Contracts Act 1950 s 24 - Moneylending - Illegal moneylending - Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Evidence - Judicial Comity - Equity - Remedies - Whether the Power of Attorney conflicts with Section 10 of the Kedah Malay Reserve Enactment - Whether the third-party purchaser is entitled to the remedy of specific performance of the Consensual Agreement. 1 Asesessment of Damages - losses and damages suffered - misuse/tresspass - loss of paddy yield - 1 Limitation Act 1953 - claim damages - six years 1 Restitutio in integrum - injured party be restored - had the tortious act not occured 1 Land law - Indefeasibility of title - Order for sale - Effect of sale - Land acquisition Probate and administration - Breach of Section 60 of the Probate & Administration Act - Consent letters Civil procedure - Pleadings - Cause of action - Amendment to pleadings - Unpleaded issues Tort - Fraud - Breach of trust - Trustee Evidence - Documentary evidence - Admissibility Trial - issue not Pleaded - No Amendment to Pleading 1 Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Proceedings — Amendment of Application — Order 35 rule 2 ROC 2012 — Order 20 rule 8 ROC 2012 — Judicial discretion — Deliberate absence — Inordinate delay — Extension of time — Failure to produce medical certificate — Inadequate evidence — Burden of proof — Adverse inference rule — Whether Bona fide application — Afterthought application — Prejudice. 1 Limitation: Cause of action - Accrual of - When time began to run - Claim of breach of duty of care and professional negligence - Whether time period for limitation ran from date of impugned agreement or from date of infringement of claimant's right caused by impugned agreement - Whether knowledge or discoverability of breach material for purpose of determining whether cause of action accrued - Balancing competing rights and interests of respective parties - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 1 Tort: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach - Causation - Loss - Breach of statutory duty - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - National Land Code 1 Land Law: Land Administrator - Statutory duty - Inaccurate information - Computerised Land Registration System (CLRS) - National Land Code - Malay Reserve Land endorsement - Duty of care - Whether can be relied upon 1 Res Judicata: Whether the present claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata 1 Unjust Enrichment: Whether the doctrine of “unjust enrichment” provided a valid defence for the SLA Defendants against the Plaintiff’s claim 1 Issues: whether the transaction ought to be regarded as a genuine sale - whether it is in substance no more than a loan clothed in the appearance of a sale - whether the Plaintiff’s claim is caught by the law of limitation? 1 Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1953 1 Issues - whether the transaction ought to be regarded as a genuine sale - whether it is in substance no more than a loan clothed in the appearance of a sale - whether the Plaintiff’s claim is caught by the law of limitation. 1 Section 22 of Limitation Act 1953 1 This action is brought by the Plaintiff for the claim over a piece of land registered under the name of the deceased. This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, as the executors and beneficiaries for the estate of the Deceased, seeking to claim ownership for the said Land on the ground that the land was held by the Deceased in trust for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that the Deceased wrongfully bequeathed the said Land to the beneficiaries in his Will, as the said Land was merely held in trust for the Plaintiff, who is the rightful beneficial owner thereof. Important aspects in considering the Plaintiff’s claim, whether the Plaintiff has proven its case on the balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff is indeed the beneficial owner of the said Land and the Deceased held it in trust for the Plaintiff in this case. - The Deceased's Role and Ownership of the Land - Transfer of Ownership via Borang 14A - Trust and Ownership - Can the Will bequeath the said Land to the Deceased members of the family? - Status of the said Land 1 The dispute concerns the Defendant’s conduct in withholding stakeholder monies and interfering with the completion of the Plaintiff’s contractual obligations. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s actions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and wrongful interference with the Plaintiff’s contractual performance. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendant breached her fiduciary duty as stakeholder solicitor; Restitution and payment of monies wrongfully withheld; Damages for loss and delay; and Costs Defendant’s Counterclaim, claiming - declaration that the Main Agreement is null and void; an order to be appointed as the new contractor to complete the Project; Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant for the balance purchase price of the contract sum; Defendant be given the power to hold the certain Lots and the balance of the purchase for certain Lots to be given to a new contractor as consideration to redeem the Lots that are still under charge; the Defendant be given the power to hold the balance stakeholder sum and for the same to be used to redeem the units still under charge. 1 Contract Law – Trust Agreement – Existence and validity – Primary evidence under s.62 Evidence Act 1950 – Presumption under s.90 Evidence Act 1950 – Binding effect on legal representatives – Specific performance – Contracts Act 1950, s.38 – Specific Relief Act 1950, ss.2, 26 1 Property Law – Nature of original transaction – Outright sale or trust arrangement – Government housing loan – Payments by Plaintiff – Alleged tenancy – Contradictory testimony – Resulting trust – Constructive trust – Equity will not allow legal title to defeat beneficial interest – Limitation Act 1953, s.10(1) 1 Evidence Law – Admissibility of Trust Agreement – Original document produced – Document stamped and witnessed before solicitor – Plaintiff’s payment records – Loss of receipts explained – 1996 affidavit as interim reflection of ongoing payments – Defendant’s denials lacking personal knowledge – Empty denials – Contradictions in testimony 1 Land Law – Indefeasibility of title – National Land Code, s.340 – Immediate proprietor acquiring title through defective probate – Suppression of material facts in pusaka proceedings – Mala fide conduct – Equity and constructive trust as overriding interests 1 Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Parties bound by pleadings – Limitation not pleaded – Unpleaded issues cannot be raised at submissions 1 Equity – Constructive trust – Unconscionable reliance on legal title – Suppression of trust in inheritance proceedings – Defendant’s mala fide conduct – Court’s equitable jurisdiction to compel transfer 1 Defamation — political speech — public figure — whether statements made during campaign are defamatory — whether statements refer to plaintiff — whether statements published — whether statements lower plaintiff’s reputation — use of term “pencuri” — criminal innuendo — governance vs criminal liability — defence of justification — defence of fair comment — whether statements based on false facts — role of Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI) — compound letter validity — Dewan Bahasa definition — impact of media dissemination — Federal Constitution — Auditor-General Report — MARRIS fund mismanagement — rare earth elements (REE) controversy — application of Raub Australian Gold Mining v Hue Shieh Lee — application of Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong — Defamation Act 1957 — section 8 — whether defence of justification negated by malice 1 "Tuntutan Tort Fitnah - sama ada Plf telah berjaya membuktikan kenyataan-kenyataan Def 1 dan Def 2 adalah fitnah - sama ada Def 1 dan Def 2 berjaya membuktikan pembelaan justifikasi dan ulasan saksama - sama ada Def 1 dan Def 2 di dalam tuntutan balas mereka berjaya membuktikan kenyataan-kenyaataan Plf adalah fitnah - sama ada Plf berjaya membuktikan pembelaan justifikasi dan ulasan saksama - amaun ganti rugi yang wajar" 1 Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Section 30 — Direct Payment — Principal's Liability -- Adjudication Decision — Failure to Pay — Statutory Claim Evidential Burden — Interim Payment Certificate (IPC) — Proof of Payment — Section 30(5) CIPAA Service of Notice — Proper Delivery — Clause 77.3 — Jurisdictional Defect — Section 30(1) CIPAA Corporate Veil — Separate Legal Entity — Lifting Corporate Veil — Interests of Justice "Unified Entity" Doctrine — Agency — Ostensible Authority — Common Directors — Shared Addresses Construction Law — Payment Adjudication — Principal-Subcontractor Disputes — Statutory Compliance 1 Civil Procedure - Land Law - Foreclosure -Order for Sale - Originating Summons - Affidavit - Cause to the Contrary - Public Auction - Service of Notice - Balance of Convenience -Costs Land law - Charge - Chargee - Chargor - Indefeasibility - Vacant possession Contract law - Put and Call Option Agreement - Supplemental Agreement - Memorandum of Understanding - action in rem - action in personam -statutory remedy Evidence law - Burden of proof - Bare denial - Registered post slip 1 ORIGINATING SUMMON Issues - (a) Whether the Plaintiff having instituted the proceeding without first obtaining the requisite sanction of the Director General of Insolvency acts in contravention of section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967; 1 (b) Whether by filing an application founded upon causes of action in defamation, harassment against the Plaintiff through deceitful means—whether directly, indirectly, and/or collaterally in relation to the Land—the Plaintiff’s cause of action amounts to an exception to the sanction requirement under section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967? 1 ORIGINATING SUMMONS – Interpleader proceedings - determination as to the rightful party entitled to the return of sum of money sescribed as a deposit. 1 ISSUES - Requirements of interpleader proceeding - Applicant has demonstrated and fulfilled. - Whether the First Respondent is entitled to forfeit the earnest deposit. - Issue of the entitlement to the earnest deposit which was paid by the Second Respondent to the First Respondent for the intended purchase. 1 FINDINGS - Earnest deposit kept by applicant are to be returned to Second Respondent through Second Respondent's solicitor with accrued interest. 1 COST - No order as against or for the Applicant - Order for First Respondent is to bear cost to be paid to the Second Respondent 1 ORIGINATING SUMMON Issues: (a) The absence of sanction- whether it bars the present action? 1 (b) Whether section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act, in its current form, imposes undue hardship upon undischarged bankrupts. Legislative reform is warranted to ensure fairness and justice in its application? 1 (c) Whether, by naming the Director General of Insolvency Malaysia as a party to the proceedings, the requirement of obtaining sanction from the Director General of Insolvency Malaysia is thereby dispensed with? 1 ORIGINATING SUMMON Issues: Whether the Plaintiff could institute the present action without first obtaining sanction from the DGI? 1 (b) Whether sanction is required in an action where the DGI is sued for failure in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities while acting as Official Assignee of Hosba Valley Resort? 1 (c) Whether the present action against the Liquidator is caught by the doctrine of res judicata for one of sanction as the issue has been raised and decided previously in Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-341-08/2021 (OS 341) and Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-543-11/2024 (OS 543)? 1 Aturan 7 KKM 2012; Deklarasi menceroboh; taksiran gantirugi; pengambilan balik; seksyen 101 akta keterangan 1950; seksyen 102 akta keterangan 1950; beban pembuktian kes sivil; beban pembuktian terletak pada Plaintif; 1 Aturan 7 KKM 2012; Seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950; seksyen 102 Akta Keterangan 1950; pengambilan semula; deklarasi pencerobohan; beban pembuktian kes sivil; beban pembuktian terletak pada plaintif; 1 Declaration tenancy agreement is a legally valid agreement - Restriction on sale and lease of Malay reservation. The issue - whether the Defendants are entitled to terminate the Tenancy Agreement by giving one month notice and in the absence of any breach by the Plaintiff - whether the Tenancy Agreement is contravenes the provisions of the Malay Reservation Enactment Kedah 1930 (Revised 2019) Enactment 29. 1 Civil Procedure - Extension of Time - Order 3 Rule 5 - Order 37 - Assessment of Damages - Delay - Affidavit Evidence - Interlocutory Application - Principles of Natural Justice - Case Management - Striking Out - Technical Objections - Purpose of Justice - Case Management Proceeding - Order 34 of Rules of Court 2012 1 Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Affidavit - Explanation of Delay - Justification - Evidentiary Material 1 Land Law - Alienation of Land - Encroachment - Interference - Valuation Report 1 Vexatious Litigant — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 — Paragraph 17 Schedule CJA 1964 — Abuse of Process — Habitual and Persistent Legal Proceedings — Without Reasonable Cause — Undischarged Bankrupt — Insolvency Act 1967 — Section 38(1)(a) Insolvency Act — Sanction of Director General of Insolvency (DGI Sanction) — Charged Land — Chargee’s Rights — Foreclosure Suit — Restraining Order. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial Review – Certiorari and Mandamus – Transfer of public officer in Armed Forces – Whether transfer order constitutes non-justiciable management prerogative – Applicant challenged transfer based on personal hardship – Whether court can intervene in deployment of military personnel ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Remedies – Exhaustion of domestic remedies – Applicant challenged disciplinary actions (“Loose Arrest” and Absence Without Leave charge) prior to conclusion of Summary Trial – Whether application premature – Mandatory statutory remedy under s. 130 Armed Forces Act 1972 – Failure to appeal to Armed Forces Council – Whether judicial review can supplant statutory appeal process CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings – Judicial Review – Applicant raised new factual allegations during oral submissions regarding conduct of trial and prior reporting for duty – Whether applicant bound by facts pleaded in Statement filed under O. 53 r. 3(2) Rules of Court 2012 – Effect of failure to plead material facts 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review — Certiorari and Mandamus — Dismissal from service — Police officer convicted of khalwat in Syariah Court — Disciplinary Board imposed punishment of dismissal — Whether applicant was denied the right to be heard — Exceptions to the right to be heard under proviso (a) to art 135(2) of the Federal Constitution PUBLIC SERVANTS: Disciplinary proceedings — Dismissal — Police officer convicted of criminal offence in Syariah Court — Evaluation of punishment CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings — Bound by pleadings — Unpleaded issues — Application for judicial review — Applicant raised issue of denial of right to be heard during submissions — Issue not pleaded in original statement filed under O. 53 r. 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 — CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment — Statement in judicial review — Application to amend statement late in proceedings to include unpleaded ground — Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 7 — CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review — Interlocutory application — Cross-examination of deponent — Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 6 — Application to cross-examine deponent to obtain statistics on dismissal of other police officers 1 Petisyen Penggulungan di bawah perenggan 466(1)(a) Akta Syarikat 2016 dan Kaedah-Kaedah (Penggulungan) Syarikat 1972 - Notis Tuntutan di bawah perenggan 466(1)(a) - isu-isu utama yang perlu diputuskan - Sama ada hutang yang menjadi asas Petisyen ini merupakan hutang yang sah, pasti dan boleh dituntut (debt due and payable) di bawah perenggan 466(1)(a) Akta Syarikat 2016 - Sama ada wujud sebarang pertikaian bona fide terhadap hutang tersebut yang menjadikan prosiding penggulungan tidak sesuai digunakan - Sama ada Petisyen ini merupakan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah - penafian umum tanpa sebarang bukti kukuh yang menunjukkan bahawa hutang tersebut tidak wujud atau telah dibayar - tidak mencapai ambang pertikaian bona fide sebagaimana ditetapkan oleh undang-undang – Prinsip Undang-undang - It is trite law that the court will not allow a petition for winding up to proceed where there exists a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. However, it is equally trite that a mere assertion or denial, unsupported by credible evidence, does not constitute a bona fide dispute. 1 Petisyen Perceraian oleh Pempetisyen Suami, di bawah seksyen 53 dan 54 Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 - Petisyen ini turut melibatkan isu-isu berkaitan hak penjagaan anak, nafkah isteri dan anak, serta pembahagian harta sepencarian - Sama ada perkahwinan pihak-pihak telah pecah-belah tanpa sebarang kemungkinan untuk dipulihkan - perenggan 54(1)(b) - Nafkah Responden Isteri - jumlah, bentuk bayaran (sekali gus atau berkala), dan tempoh. - Nafkah anak- jumlah yang munasabah sehingga tamat pengajian - Harta sepencarian: sama ada Responden Isteri berhak kepada bahagian harta-harta yang diperoleh sepanjang perkahwinan, dan bagaimana harus dibahagi - seksyen 77 Akta 164 yang membolehkan Mahkamah memerintahkan seorang suami itu membayar nafkah kepada isteri - Seksyen 78. 1 Petitioner’s application for the dissolution of the marriage under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA”) -Whether the marriage has broken down irretrievably under section 53 LRA - Whether the Respondent committed cruelty or misconduct. -Whether the parties are separated and no possibility of reconciliation exists. - Whether maintenance should be awarded - Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a share of matrimonial assets, and the appropriate apportionment. Effect of Respondent’s bankruptcy. The percentages declared herein represent the parties’ beneficial interests. Any realisation, transfer, sale, or distribution involving the Respondent’s share shall be undertaken in accordance with the IA 1967, and under the administration of the IA 1967 1 FAMILY LAW – Divorce; Dissolution of marriage; Matrimonial proceedings; Cross-petition 1 CHILDREN – Custody; Care and control; Access; Welfare of child; Paramount consideration; Child maintenance; Duration of maintenance until majority or completion of first degree 1 MAINTENANCE – Spousal maintenance; Interim maintenance (pending suit); Ability to pay; Financial means; Standard of living; Refusal to pay maintenance 1 MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY – Matrimonial home; Ownership dispute; Restriction on disposal; Transfer of ownership to children; Loan repayments; Contribution (direct and indirect); Division of matrimonial assets; EPF savings; Bank deposits; Setting aside dispositions 1 EVIDENCE – Credibility of parties; Allegations of assault; Lack of police reports; Medical evidence not proven; Perjury; Non-disclosure of income; Contradictions in testimony; Adverse inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 1 PROCEDURE – Ancillary relief; Discovery; Interim maintenance order; Contempt proceedings; Execution of transfer by Registrar; Costs 1 PRINCIPLES OF LAW – Welfare of child paramount consideration; Maintenance obligation statutory duty under LRA 1976; Contributions of homemaker spouse; Equal division of matrimonial assets; Inability to evade obligations by under-declaring income 1 FAMILY LAW: Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Adultery and cruelty – Allegation that husband committed adultery with co-respondent – Evidence – Intimate messages and photographs – Whether adultery proved on balance of probabilities – Cruelty – Physical assault and domestic violence – Withdrawal of police report – Whether withdrawal negated fact of cruelty – Constructive desertion – Husband locking wife and child out of matrimonial home – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss. 53 & 54 FAMILY LAW: Children – Access – Application for overnight access by father – Factors to consider – Welfare of child – Child traumatized by father’s past violence and aggression – Whether overnight access appropriate – Maintenance – Assessment – Husband failing to produce documentary evidence of income – Duty to make full and frank disclosure – Adverse inference – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss. 88, 92 & 93 FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial property – Division – Matrimonial home registered in husband's sole name – Allegation that property held in trust for parents – Absence of documentary proof regarding parents' contribution – Wife’s contribution – Direct financial contribution via EPF withdrawals for loan instalments – Non-financial contribution to welfare of family – Entitlement to equal division – EPF contributions – Whether matrimonial asset subject to division – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 76 – Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, s. 53A FAMILY LAW: Damages – Adultery – Claim against co-respondent – Measure of damages – Domestic violence – Personal injuries – Whether court empowered to award general damages for assault within divorce proceedings – Principles applicable – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 58 EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Non-production of material documents – Husband claiming low income but failing to produce salary slips or bank statements – Husband claiming house paid for by parents but failing to produce transaction records – Presumption that evidence if produced would be unfavourable – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) 1 LAND LAW: Foreclosure – Order for Sale – Application to fix reserve price – Appeal against Senior Assistant Registrar – Valuation of land – Conflicting valuation reports – Valuation prepared for ‘Financing’ vs ‘Auction’ purposes – Reliance on cancelled Development Order – Whether valuation fundamentally flawed – National Land Code, s 257 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Execution – Appeal – Reserve price – Failure to object to previous reserve price – Acquiescence – Statutory reduction of reserve price – Whether defendant estopped from disputing lower reserve price after failing to object to higher price in previous abortive auction – National Land Code, s 259(2)(c) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata – Constructive res judicata – Abuse of process – Attempt to reopen substantive issues at execution stage – Validity of Form 16D and Shariah compliance of debt – Whether issues ought to have been raised during Originating Summons – Distinction between judgment debt and order for sale – Application of Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd – Kandiah Peter v Public Bank Bhd distinguished 1 Perayu dituduh melakukan kesalahan rogol. Isu-isu rayuan Perayu melibatkan pertuduhan yang cacat dan percanggahan keterangan saksi-saksi Pendakwaan. Isu pertuduhan cacat melibatkan seksyen definisi yang dimasukkan dalam pertuduhan dan ketiadaan tarikh yang tepat. Isu percanggahan keterangan melibatkan percanggahan keterangan saksi dan laporan FIR, percanggahan tentang berapa kali kejadian berlaku dan tempat kejadian berlaku. Setelah meneliti keseluruhan RR, rayuan Perayu atas keseluruhan keputusan HMS adalah ditolak. Sabitan adalah selamat dan hukuman dikekalkan. 1 "Rayuan ke atas sabitan dan hukuman - seksyen 165 Kanun Keseksaan - sama ada terdapat salah arah keadilan apabila perayu disabitkan atas pertuduhan pilihan - sama ada HMS terkhilaf apabila menerima keterangan SP6 dan SP9 - sama ada HMS terkhilaf apabila memutuskan terdapat keterangan perayu menerima wang daripada SP6 - sama ada HMS terkhilaf apabila mengaplikasikan seksyen 50 Akta 694" 1 Permohonan pelucuthakan harta di bawah subseksyen 56(1) Akta 613. Responden-Responden mengemukakan bantahan awal atas Permohonan Pemohon kerana Afidavit Sokongan TPR dan Afidavit Sokongan AMLA yang merujuk kepada pengataan fakta kewujudan kesalahan predikat di dalam Afidavit Sokongan Predikat telah diikrarkan sebelum Afidavit Sokongan Predikat diikrarkan. Oleh itu, Afidavit Sokongan TPR dan Afidavit Sokongan AMLA adalah bersifat dengar cakap (hearsay) dan tidak boleh diterima pakai sebagai keterangan. Permohonan di bawah subseksyen 56(1) bukan suatu Permohonan interlokutori dan perintah di bawah peruntukan tersebut bersifat 'final order'. Oleh itu pematuhan kepada A 41 k 5(1) perlulah dipatuhi secara ketat. Bantahan awal Responden-Responden dibenarkan dan Permohonan Pemohon untuk perintah pelucuthakan harta ditolak. 1 Pertuduhan di bawah sek 39B ADB 1952. Isu utama yang dibangkitkan adalah berkenaan maklumat yang diberikan hasil soalsiasat yang membawa kepada penemuan dadah terbabit. Tiada kata-kata amaran diberikan. Maklumat diberikan adalah boleh diterima masuk sebagai keterangan di bawah sek 27 Akta Keterangan 1950. 1 "Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - disabitkan dan dihukum penjara seumur hidup - sama ada PR telah membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah" 1 "Seksyen 39B (1)(a) Akta 234 - tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - sama ada pihak PR berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie - sama ada keterangan sumber adalah dilindungi di bawah seksyen 40 Akta 234" 1 "Sek 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - OKT disabitkan dan dihukum penjara seumur hidup - sama ada PR telah berjaya membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah" 1 "Seksyen 12(2)/39A(2) Akta 234 - Pertuduhan Pilihan -pengakuan salah - sama ada hukuman yang dikenakan adalah adil dan wajar" 1 "Sek 39B Akta 234 - sabit dan dihukum mati - sama ada pihak PR telah membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah - apakah hukuman yang adil ke atas tertuduh" 1 OKT dituduh dengan dua pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin dan Monoacetylmorphines. Antara isu diketengahkan adalah berkenaan dua pertuduhan yang diasingkan bagi dadah yang dianalisis bersama, proses kerja ahli kimia dan milikan dadah dalam bilik yang turut boleh diakses oleh orang lain. Pada akhir kes Pembelaan, OKT disabitkan atas kedua-dua pertuduhan bagi pengedaran dadah berbahaya. 1 "Sabitan di bawah seksyen 39B Akta 234 - sama ada PR telah berjaya membuktikan kes tanpa kerguan munasabah - sama ada keterangan di bawah seksyen 27 Akta 56 adalah relevan dan diterima masuk" 1 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Bicara penuh - Kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Kes Pendakwaan - Sama ada PR telah membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh melampaui keraguan yang munasabah - Dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin dan Monoacetylmorphines – Sama ada dadah tersebut adalah dadah sepertimana di dalam Jadual Pertama ADB 1952 - Sama ada dadah yang dipersoalkan adalah di dalam milikan OKT – Sama ada keterangan SP3 dan SP5 adalah kredible dan boleh dipercayai – Sama ada terdapat elemen pengedaran dadah tersebut - Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan dari pertuduhan di akhir kes pendakwaan 1 "Pertuduhan Pilihan di bawah seksyen 12(2)/39A(2) Akta 234 - OKT mengaku salah - sama ada hukuman adalah setimpal" 1 "Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - sabitan di akhir kes - sama ada PR telah membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah" 1 OKT2 telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan pilihan di bawah seksyen 12(2)/39A(2) ADB 1952. OKT2 memohon hukuman penjara minimum dikenakan iaitu 5 tahun atas alasan telah mengaku salah pada saat awal ditawarkan pertuduhan pilihan, pesalah pertama, alasan-alasan peribadi dan trend hukuman terkini yang dihujahkan antara 6 - 9 thn penjara. Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara 9 tahun bermula daripada tarikh ditangkap. Tiada sebatan diperintahkan kerana OKT2 seorang wanita selaras dengan peruntukan subseksyen 289(a) KTJ. 1 OKT dituduh mengedar dadah berbahaya. Pada akhir kes Pendakwaan, Mahkamah telah mendapati bahawa pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap OKT atas pertuduhan dan OKT dipanggil membela diri. Pembelaan OKT telah disokong oleh isterinya (yang telah turut ditahan sama pada hari kejadian tetapi tidak dituduh) dan rakan OKT. Pada akhir Pembelaan Mahkamah mendapati bahawa OKT telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah atas pemilikan dan dengan itu telah juga mematahkan anggapan pengedaran dadah berbahaya. OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan. 1 Pertuduhan di bawah sek 39B ADB 1952. OKT1 dan OKT2 ditahan semasa memasuki Restoran tempat kejadian dengan OKT1 dilihat sedang memegang bungkusan kain putih. OKT1 dan OKT2 dituduh secara niat bersama telah mengedarkan dadah berbahaya. Pembelaan bahawa terdapat penganiayaan oleh penama Tarmizi ataupun pemandu kereta Honda Accord biru. Pada akhir kes pembelaan, OKT1 dan OKT2 disabitkan dengan kesalahan dan dijatuhkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan 12 sebagai, bagi setiap OKT. 1 "Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes - sama ada PR berjaya membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah" 1 "Seksyen 39B Akta 234 - disabitkan - dihukum penjara seumur hidup - adakah PR telah membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah" 1 "Sek 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - tertuduh disabit dan dijatuhi hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan 12 sebatan - sama ada PR telah membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munsabah" 1 Rayuan jenayah terhadap sabitan dan hukuman; Penilaian semula keterangan oleh mahkamah rayuan; Percanggahan material dalam keterangan saksi; Isu identifikasi; pengecaman tertuduh; Keterangan keadaan yang menyokong pertuduhan; circumstantial evidence; benefit of the doubt; safe conviction; 1 OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya pada akhir kes pendakwaan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. Elemen pemilikan telah gagal dibuktikan oleh Pendakwaan kerana wujud keterangan bahawa terdapatnya akses orang lain ke atas rumah di mana dadah ditemui. Dadah ditemui dalam satu kotak putih di ruang tamu rumah. Pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal mengecualikan akses orang lain terhadap rumah tersebut. 1 "Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pembelaan - sama ada satu kes prima facie telah dibuktikan - sama ada pembelaan tertuduh membangkitkan keraguan munasabah". 1 Rayuan atas hukuman oleh pihak Pendakwa Raya. OKT telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan pilihan di bawah seksyen 39A(2) ADB 1952 dan telah dijatuhkan hukuman penjara lapan tahun bermula daripada tarikh ditangkap dan 10 sebatan. Pendakwa Raya tidak mengemukakan hujahan pemberatan hukuman yang komprehensif, hanya sekadar memohon hukuman setimpal dikenakan terhadap OKT. 1 Pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya. OKT ditahan di dalam bilik sewa yang didakwa OKT bukan bilik sewanya. Keterangan saksi-saksi pembelaan adalah juga berkemungkinan dan menyokong keterangan OKT. OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan pada akhir keseluruhan kes. 1 Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a)/39B(2) ADB 1952. Pada akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah mendapati OKT telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah atas elemen pemilikan dan dengan itu OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan. Isu sama ada anggapan bertentangan (adverse inference) boleh terpakai terhadap OKT/Pembelaan atas kegagalan memanggil saksi menyokong keterangannya. Isu berkenaan 'printout' daripada hasil analisis mesin GCMS dan GCFID serta kuantiti minimum yang sepatutnya digunakan oleh ahli kimia dalam menjalankan analisis. 1 Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah di bawah sek 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952. Dadah ditemui di atas tilam tempat OKT sedang baring. Semasa serbuan, OKT telah bertindak cuba melarikan diri. Rumah tempat kejadian hanya mempunyai satu pintu dan tidak mempunyai tombol. Namun begitu, hanya OKT dan isteri (SP4) yang menduduki rumah tersebut. Pada akhir kes pendakwaan, OKT telah diperintahkan untuk membela diri. Pembelaan yang dikemukakan adalah bercanggah dan tidak konsisten. Sehubungan itu, Pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan yang munasabah dan OKT disabitkan atas kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya. Hukuman penjara seumur hidup bermula daripada tarikh ditangkap dan 12 sebatan. 1 OKT dituduh mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine. Pada akhir kes Pendakwaan, OKT telah diperintahkan untuk membela diri atas pertuduhan terhadapnya. Pembelaan menafikan bahawa OKT ditangkap di tempat sebagaimana dalam pertuduhan sebaliknya ditangkap di tempat lain bersama-sama dua orang tangkapan lain (SD2 dan seorang lagi rakan OKT). Laporan tangkapan OKT dan juga SD2 menunjukkan tarikh tangkapan yang berbeza, namun begitu berlaku di tepi jalan di lokasi yang sama, dan juga dipegang oleh OKT dan SD2 dengan cara yang sama. Pada akhir kes Pembelaan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa kedua-dua laporan polis yang menunjukkan tangkapan OKT dan SD2 menimbulkan keraguan ke atas kebersalahan OKT. OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan. 1 "Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - kedua-dua tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan - sama ada andaian pengetahuan di bawah seksyen 37(h) Akta 234 boleh digunapakai - sama ada PR berjaya membuktikan kes tanpa keraguan munasabah". 1 Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952. Dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis seberat 294.03 gram. Dadah berbahaya ditemui dalam bilik OKT bersama-sama peralatan yang lain secara terdedah. Isu 2 orang saksi Pendakwaan sebagai saksi 'hostile'. Pembelaan bahawa terdapat orang yang lain yang telah meletakkan dadah di dalam bilik OKT. Penama Pak Su yang dikatakan mungkin menganiaya OKT hanya timbul pada peringkat Pembelaan. Pada akhir kes Pembelaan, Mahkamah telah mensabitkan pertuduhan terhadap OKT dan menjatuhkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan 12 sebatan. 1 Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 29B(1)(a)/39B(2) ADB 1952 dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. Pada akhir kes pendakwaan, kedua-dua OKT telah dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri kerana pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes pendakwaan pada tahap prima facie. Percanggahan ketara antara keterangan Pengadu dengan senarai bongkar yang merupakan contemporaneous document yang tidak langsung diberikan penjelasan oleh Pendakwaan. Kegagalan membuktikan elemen pemilikan dan niat bersama antara kedua-dua OKT. 1 Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya melibatkan dadah jenis Cannabis. Terdapat tiga serbuan yang berturut-turut yang dipertikaikan oleh pihak Pembelaan sebagai mengakibatkan putusnya rantaian keterangan barang kes bagi dadah berbahaya dalam kes ini. Pada peringkat kes Pembelaan, OKT2 telah memilih memberikan keterangan tidak bersumpah dari kandang salah (statement from the dock). Pada akhir kes Pembelaan, pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan keseluruhan kes pada tahap melampaui keraguan yang munasabah dan kedua-dua OKT disabitkan dengan pertuduhan. 1 Pertuduhan membunuh di bawah sek 302 KK. Setelah OKT dipanggil membela diri, pembelaan dikemukakan adalah hak pertahanan persendirian, intoxication sehingga menjadi gila, pergaduhan (sudden fight) dan bangkitan marah yang besar dan mengejut (grave and sudden provocation). Pada akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa OKT telah gagal mengemukakan keterangan bagi membuktikan pembelaan-pembelaan dikemukakan atas imbangan kebarangkalian. OKT disabitkan atas kesalahan membunuh dan dijatuhi hukuman mati. 1 OKT dituduh dengan kesalahan membunuh 2 orang kanak-kanak yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 302 KK. Kedua-dua si mati telah dibunuh dengan kesan kelaran di leher yang hampir putus. Pembelaan OKT adalah bersandarkan kepada pembelaan 'insanity' di bawah seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan. Pada akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa Pembelaan telah gagal membuktikan pembelaan 'insanity' pada tahap imbangan kebarangkalian. Sehubungan itu, OKT telah disabitkan atas kesalahan bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan membunuh dan dijatuhi hukuman mati. 1 Pertuduhan membunuh yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan. Pada akhir kes Pembelaan, OKT telah disabitkan dengan kesalahan membunuh. Pembelaan adalah tidak konsisten langsung dengan keterangan pakar patologi forensik yang menunjukkan bahawa kecederaan yang mengakibatkan kematian si mati tidak konsisten langsung dengan senario berlakunya pergelutan. Juga tiada sebarang kecederaan 'defensive' dialami si mati. Hukuman penjara 30 tahun bermula daripada tarikh ditangkap dan 12 sebaran, bersandarkan kepada kelakuan si mati sendiri yang merupakan seorang penagih dadah, OKT merupakan seorang yang muda ketika kejadian dan trend hukuman Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mengubah hukuman mati kepada hukuman penjara. 1 Pertuduhan membunuh di bawah sek 302KK. Punca kematian tidak dapat dipastikan secara muktamad oleh pakar patologi forensik kerana hanya tengkorak dan 2 batang gigi simati ditemui. Berdasarkan keseluruhan fakta kes, walaupun punca kematian tidak dapat dipastikan secara saintifik, keterangan-keterangan saksi pendakwaan yang lain menimbulkan hanya satu inferens iaitu si mati yang berumur 3 tahun ketika kejadian, telah dibunuh (penderaan secara berpanjangan) oleh OKT. OKT disabitkan atas kesalahan membunuh dan dijatuhi hukuman mati. 1 "Seksyen 26A Akta 670 - pengakuan salah - sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah melampau - sama ada faktor kepentingan awam mengatasi faktor kepentingan peribadi OKT" 1 "Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta 234 - OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - sama ada PR telah membuktikan satu kes prima facie - sama ada terdapat keterangan yang memadai bagi membuktikan dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan OKT - sama ada sumber telah memainkan peranan aktif sehingga tidak lagi dilindungi di bawah seksyen 40 Akta 234 - sama ada kegagalan memanggil sumber membangkitkan inferens yang tidak memihak PR di bawah seksyen 114 Akta 56" 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan Majistret bertarikh 5.9.2024 yang membenarkan permohonan Plaintif untuk masukkan penghakiman ringkas terhadap Defendan. Mahkamah ini berpuas hati Defendan telah gagal menimbulkan apa-apa yang wajar dibicarakan dalam tuntutan Plaintif. Rayuan ini tidak bermerit 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan Majistret bertarikh 3.9.2024 atas isu liabiliti. Majistret menetapkan Plaintif bertanggungan 100% untuk suatu kemalangan yang berlaku pada 8.5.2022. Tiada sebarang justifikasi untuk Mahkamah mengganggu keputusan Majistret. Keputusan Puan Majistret jelas bersandarkan kesemua keterangan yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah seperti yang digambarkan dalam alasan penghakiman beliau. Rayuan ditolak 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan Majistret bertarikh 29.10.2024 atas isu liabiliti dan kuantum. Majistret menetapkan tanggungan kecuaian 50% pada pihak-pihak dan kuantum untuk kos physiotherapy pada kadar RM 1000.00. Tiada sebarang justifikasi untuk Mahkamah mengganggu keputusan Majistret. Rayuan ditolak 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS bt 1.12.2024 yang menolak permohonan Plaintif untuk meminda semula pernyataan tuntutannya. Isu sama ada rayuan ini kompeten berdasarkan seksyen 28 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. Isu ini telahpun diputuskan dalam kes oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Kempadang Bersatu Sdn Bhd v. Perkayuan OKS NO.2 Sdn Bhd [2019] 4 MLJ 614 dan Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd (registered owner and licensee of the Higher Learning Institute Lincoln University College) v. Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 2 MLJ 1; [2020] 3 CLJ 153; [2020] 2 AMR 517; [2020] 1 MLRA 683. Rayuan ditolak. 1 Plaintiff's application to enter judgment against the Defendants under O.27 r.3(1) ROC 2012. The application is premised on admissions made during case management of her suit on 30.5.2023 dan 20.12.2023. The alleged admissions were not clear and unequivocal. 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS bt 2.9.2024 - beliau menolak permohonan Defendan untuk keluarkan notis pihak ketiga. Permohonan dibuat semasa kes di peringkat sambung bicara. Tiada sebarang alasan untuk kelewatan di pihak Defendan membuat permohonan ini. Rayuan ditolak. 1 Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS bertarikh 19.11.2024 yang membatalkan Notis Pihak Ketiga atas kegagalan Defendan memohon arahan pengurusan kes. Defendan telah mengeluarkan notis pihak ketiga terhadap Pihak Ketiga atas dakwaan Pihak Ketiga telah menyebabkan atau menyumbang kepada kemalangan yang berlaku pada 14.3.2019. Kegagalan memohon arahan pengurusan kes berhubung notis pihak ketiga tersebut mengingkari A.16 k.4 KM 2012. Terdapat kelewatan yang keterlaluan di pihak Defendan dalam mengeluarkan Notis Pihak Ketiga. Rayuan ditolak. 1 Pengambilan Tanah. Pemohon membantah kecukupan pampasan untuk pengambilan tanah untuk awad nilai tanah, pecah pisah, kesan mudarat dan fi professional. 1 Pengambilan Tanah. Pemohon membantah kecukupan pampasan untuk pengambilan tanah untuk awad nilai tanah, kesan mudarat kehilangan pendapatan dan kos pembangunan tanah 1 Kes sivil - tuntutan gantirugi untuk kecuaian perubatan. Plaintif gagal menepati arahan pengurusan kes 1 Pembatalan Saman Pemula dan Pernyataan Tuntutan - permohonan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b), (c) dan/atau (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - deklarasi berkenaan ahli dan Pengerusi Lembaga Pengelola Sekolah (LPS) Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (C) Chong Cheng - Tindakan Saman Pemula ditukar kepada Writ Saman semasa pengurusan kes – sama ada tuntutan plaintif melalui writ saman dan penyata tuntutan adalah mod yang salah – sama ada tindakan bagi mencabar pihak berkuasa awam perlu melalui semakan kehakiman di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – sama ada tindakan terhadap Pihak Berkuasa Awam melalui Writ Saman adalah penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah dan wajar dibatalkan. 1 Plaintif memohon penghakiman terus. Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan adalah untuk tunggakan di bawah suatu kemudahan pinjaman pinjaman tetap untuk jumlah RM 1,149,632.00. Defendan Kedua peminjam dan Defendan Pertama penjamin kemudahan tersebut. Defendan Kedua juga telah menggadaikan suatu hartanah. Secara keseluruhan, Defendan-Defendan menafikan tuntutan Plaintif dengan - 1. mempertikaikan kesalihan notis penamatan kemudahan tersebut kerana ianya tidak jelas, nyata dan khusus; dan 2. menyatakan keengganan Plaintif menerima bayaran balik selepas tindakan dimulakan berniat jahat. Mahkamah berpuas hati Plaintif telah mengemukakan suatu kes yang wajar diputuskan secara penghakiman terus dan Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membangkitkan apa-apa isu yang wajar dibicarakan dengan panggilan saksi. 1 Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif adalah untuk mendapatkan balik bahagian tanah mendiang ayah yang dipindahmilik kepada Defendan atas dasar amanah dan pampasan yang diberikan untuk pengambilan sebahagian tanah tersebut. Tuntutan balas Defendan adalah untuk mendapat milikan hartanah milik mendiang ibu Plaintif-Plaintif kerana Defendan telah menebus geran tersebut selepas membayar hutang. Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif berdasarkan dokumen-dokumen yang jelas menunjukkan Defendan memegang tanah tersebut sebagai pemegang amanah untuk mereka. Pembelaan Defendan berupa penafian semata-mata. Defendan tiada hak mendapatkan milikan harta ibu kerana tiada bukti yang dia membayar apa-apa hutang. 1 The First and Second Defendants' application to stay the execution of a monetary consent judgment under O.42 r. 11 ROC. The Defendants had filed civil suit to sent aside the said judgment. The Defendants failed to fulfill the key element of the provision - the application for stay must be based on matters which had occurred since the date the judgment that was sought to be stayed. 1 Prosidur Sivil - permohonan untuk masukkan penghakiman muktamad atas persoalan sama ada Plaintif selaku penanggung insuran bertanggungan untuk suatu kemalangan. Plaintif menafikan tanggungan berdasarkan cover note yang menunjukkan tarikh dan masa sedangkan Defendan Ketiga berpegang kepada Jadual polisi tersebut yang hanya menunjukkan tarikh polisi itu berkuatkuasa. 1 Prosidur Sivil - NP menghidupkan semula tuntutan yang dibatalkan kerana Plaintif gagal mematuhi arahan pengurusan kes. 1 Tuntutan Plaintif adalah untuk pelaksanaan spesifik suatu perjanjian antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Plaintif telah membuat bayaran penuh pembelian 2 hartanah bagi pihak Defendan Pertama. Kedua pihak memasuki perjanjian yang sekiranya Defendan Pertama gagal membayar balik jumlah tersebut, dia akan memindahmilik kedua hartanah itu kepada Plaintif. Defendan Pertama gagal membuat bayaran seperti yang dijanjikan dan enggan memindah milik hartanah tersebut. Pembelaan Defendan Pertama penafian semata-mata. Defendan Kedua defendan nominal. 1 Permohonan untuk perintah Pemohon adalah pemilik benefisial hartanah dan wajar didaftarkan sebagai pemilik berdaftar. Pemohon telah membeli hartanah daripada mendiang ayah Responden Pertama yang telah meletakkan cap jarinya pada Borang 14A di hadapan Penolong Pentadbir Tanah. Walau bagaimanapun, Pemohon tidak diberikan dokumen hakmilik. Pindahmilik tidak dapat dilaksanakan pada tarikh penjualan kerana ada sekatan pada hakmilik tersebut. Responden Pertama tidak mengetahui apa-apa berkenaan urusan penjualan hartanah oleh mendiang ayahnya dan didaftarkan sebagai pentadbir harta pusakanya sahaja. 1 Mahkamah mendapati Pemohon adalah pemilik benefisial Hartanah tersebut. Tempoh had masa kausa tindakan Pemohon bermula pada tarikh dia memasukkan kaveat persendirian ke atas hartanah tersebut. 1 Application for a declaration that the Plaintiff be able to enforce its lien-holder's caveat over a property belonging to a bankrupt. The lien was created before the bankruptcy and the Defendant had given a letter of undertaking to transfer the property. The Court agreed that th property outside the purview of the Defendant’s administration. The letter of undertaking was superseded by a consent judgment. The terms of the consent judgment was amended to exclude the property. Plaintiff had no cause to ask for the transfer of the property. Plaintiff did not pray for the order for sale of the property in satisfaction of the judgment debt in his application. Application dismissed. 1 Civil application - Plaintiff's application to cancel Defendants' private caveats on the grounds that he was aggrieved. Private caveats only lodged by Defendant 1 dan Defendant 2. Defendant 3 had no nexus to the private caveats. Plaintiff's rights as owner of 1/2 share in undivided land not affected by the lodgment of the private caveat as caveats only bound the remaining 1/2 share belonging to another. 1 Semakan Kehakiman - permohonan untuk kebenaran. Pemohon memohon pelbagai perintah pengisytiharaan dan perintah lain berhubung polisi Kerajaan untuk melaksanakan polisi 4IR dan the Great Reset. Pemohon mendakwa putatif Responden terlibat dengan badan-badan antarabangsa seperti WEF, UN, WHO dan Bank Dunia untuk melakukan perbuatan jenayah bioterrorisme untuk mewujudkan New World Order bercanggah dengan beberapa peruntukan Kanun Keseksaan. Permohonan ditolak kerana - 1. ianya melibatkan pertimbangan surah-surah Al-Quran yang semestinya bukan dalam bidangkuasa Mahkamah; 2. relif-relif Pemohon jelas mengenepikan dan mengabaikan dikotomi di antara undang-undang jenayah dan sivil; dan 3. Pemohon gagal menepati peruntukan mandatori A.53 KM dalam suratcaranya. 1 Rayuan Penghutang Penghakiman terhadap keputusan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar bertarikh 29.10.2024 yang membenarkan permohonan Pemiutang Penghakiman untuk kebenaran memulakan dan meneruskan prosiding kebankrapan terhadapnya Penghutang berhujah - 1. Pemiutang dihalangkan dari mulakan tindakan kebankrapan terhadapnya kerana tindakan kebankrapan terdahulu telah dibatalkan; dan 2. jumlah keberhutangannya tidak tepat tetapi tidak memberi apa-apa alasan. Rayuan tidak bermerit. 2. 1 Rayuan jenayah - rayuan terhadap keputusan HMS bertarikh 6.3.2024 atas sabitan dan hukuman di mana Perayu - (i) disabitkan kesalahan untuk pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB) dan dikenakan hukuman penjara 12 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 10 kali sebatan rotan; dan (ii) disabitkan kesalahan untuk pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39A(1) ADB dan dikenakan hukuman penjara 3 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 3 kali sebatan rotan. 1 Rayuan ditolak kerana tiada sebarang kekhilafan di pihak HMS dalam pendekatan dan dapatan beliau. 1 Hukuman tidak excessive kerana HMS terpelajar jelas telah memberi keutamaan kepada elemen pencegahan yang amat diperlukan memandangkan peningkatan kes dadah di daerah berkenaan dan Negeri Kedah secara keseluruhan 1 Bicara penuh jenayah - dua pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya. Pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie dan OKT telah dipanggil membela diri. Kes pembelaan OKT terdiri daripada OKT yang memberi keterangan di kandang saksi melalui kenyataan bersumpah dan pakciknya. OKT mempertikaikan elemen pemilikan dan pengetahuan berkenaan barang kes dadah. Mahkamah mendapati pembelaan tidak mampu mematahkan kes pendakwaan atas imbangan kebarangkalian. OKT didapati bersalah dan disabitkan kesalahan untuk kedua pertuduhan tersebut di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB dan dijatuhkan hukuman penjara penjara seumur hidup, yakni untuk tempoh 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan dikenakan sebatan 15 kali masing-masing. 1 Kes KB-45A-16-07/2022 telah didengar bersama kes KB-45A-17-07/2022. 1 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB terhadap kesemua OKT. 3 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB terhadap OKT 2 sahaja. Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah mendapati pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan elemen pemilikan barang kes dadah yang dijumpai dalam kereta dan nait bersama kesemua OKT untuk pertuduhan 39B(1)(a). OKT 2 telah mengaku salah untuk ketiga-tiga pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB. OKT 2 ada 1 sabitan terdahulu untuk pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB. OKT telah dikenakan hukuman penjara 3 tahun dari tarikh tangkap yakni 17.4.2021 untuk setiap pertuduhan terhadapnya. 1 Criminal trial - charge under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking 187.8 grammes of methamphetamine with Mohd Hafizi bin Sulaiman, another still at large. OKT was a passenger in the car driven by Hafizi. The impugned drugs were recovered from the left side of the front dashboard in close proximity to the OKT. There was no evidence to show that OKT had control or custody of the drugs. There was also no evidence that the OKT had common intention with Hafizi to traffick the drugs. Prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against the OKT. The OKT was discharged and acquitted without calling for his defence. 1 OKT dihadapkan di Mahkamah atas 1 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya Pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie dan OKT telah dipanggil membela diri. Pembelaan OKT adalah barang kes dadah Methamphetamine seberat 64.36 gram yang dikatakan dijumpai dalam beg silang yang sedang dipakainya sebenarnya dijumpai dalam sebuah kotak kasut di rumahnya. Ada kawannya yang lain yang melawat rumahnya. Mahkamah mendapati pembelaan OKT tidak mampu mematahkan kes pendakwaan atas imbangan kebarangkalian. OKT didapati bersalah dan disabitkan kesalahan untuk pertuduhan tersebut di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB dan dijatuhkan hukuman penjara penjara seumur hidup, yakni untuk tempoh 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan dikenakan sebatan 15 kali 1 Bicara penuh jenayah - satu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Merbahaya 1952. Pembelaan telah mengemukakan versi yang bertentangan dan ini menimbulkan kelompangan dari aspek siasatan polis. Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan elemen pemilikan melampaui keraguan munasabah. OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan. 1 All three OKT were charged with an offence under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking 8812.7 grammes of methamphetamine. Prosecution failed made out a prima facie case - there were many flaws in the prosecution's case; in particular the questionable credibility of the material witnesses and the shoddy investigation. All three OKT were acquitted and discharged of the offence without calling for their defence. 1 OKT dihadapkan untuk 3 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB. 1 Pembelaan OKT adalah penafian semata-mata dan tidak mampu mematahkan dapatan fakta pemilikan dan pengetahuan atas imbangan kebarangkalian atau mewujudkan suatu keraguan munasabah dalam kes pendakwaan. 1 Both OKT were charged with an offence under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking 62.3 grammes of dangerous drugs. Prosecution made out a prima facie case dan both OKT were called to enter their defence. The Court disbelieved their version of how and where they came to be arrested. Their defence was a bare denial and unconvincing. Both OKT were found guilty and convicted of the offence. They were each sentenced to life imprisonment, with effect from the date of their arrest and 15 strokes of the whip. 1 Bicara penuh jenayah - pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Merbahaya 1952. Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie kerana gagal membuktikan OKT mempunyai akses kepada bilik di mana barang kes dadah dijumpai. Juga tiada keterangan daripada pegawai serbuan berkenaan seorang lagi tangkapan dan peranannya di tempat kejadian. Tiada penyiasatan dijalankan ke atas penama berkenaan. OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan. 1 Bicara penuh jenayah - satu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya. Pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie dan kedua OKT telah dipanggil membela diri. Pembelaan OKT 1 adalah barang kes dadah bukan miliknya. Barang kes itu milik penama Uji yang menggunakan biliknya untuk mengedar dadah. Pembelaan OKT 2 - dia tidak berada di dalam bilik di mana barang kes dadah itu dijumpai. Mahkamah mendapati pembelaan kedua OKT tidak mampu mematahkan kes pendakwaan atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Kedua OKT didapati bersalah dan disabitkan kesalahan untuk pertuduhan tersebut di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB dan dijatuhkan hukuman penjara penjara seumur hidup, yakni untuk tempoh 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan dikenakan sebatan 15 kali masing-masing. 1 Prosedur Jenayah — Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman — Tertuduh didakwa atas kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 — dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta tersebut — Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan dan 12 sebatan rotan — Sama ada pembelaan telah dipertimbangkan secukupnya oleh hakim perbicaraan — Sama ada hakim perbicaraan telah melakukan kesilapan dalam keputusannya. 1 Application to amend and to invalidate the consent orders entered by parties – on the amount refunded to the appellant does not correspond with the claims and consent orders – Court to determine the validity of the calculation of repayment and to assess the amount of repayment – Court to scrutinize the methodology of calculation adopted by Bank Negara Malaysia to compute the repayment amounts or alternatively to alter the terms of consent order. 1 Aturan 55 & 62 Kaedah Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen diakhir perbicaraan penuh - Plaintif menuntut jumlah terhutang di atas satu kontrak tender terhadap kedua dua Defenden - Tuntutan Plaintif ditolak - Rayuan terhadap Defenden Kedua - Isu utama yang berbangkit pada peringkat Rayuan adalah samada penyerahan Notis Rayuan dan Rekod Rayuan secara komunikasi elektronik iaitu e- mail adalah satu serahan yang sah - samada terdapat kegagalan pematuhan peraturan dan Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 1 Keputusan - penyerahan secara e mail dibawah Aturan 62 Kaedah 6 (1) (cc) tidak sah kerana masih belum ada arahan amalan yang di terbitkan seperti mana di peruntukan di bawah Aturan itu - apa-apa penyerahan secara elektronik adalah tertakluk kepada pematuhan kepada arahan amalan - Mahkamah juga mendapati tidak ada merit di atas isu substantif - Defenden Kedua bukan pihak kepada kontrak dan tiada keterangan bahawa Defenden Pertama telah diberi kuasa oleh Defenden Kedua untuk memasuki tender kontrak atas nama atau bagi pihak Defenden Kedua - Rayuan ditolak dengan kos. 1 Civil appeal – Decision of the Sessions Court – After a full trial - Record of Appeal filed within time – But served out of time - Application for extension of time - No good reason – Failure to obtain leave to file Supplementary Record of Appeal – Order 55 Rule 4 (1) read together with Rule 4 (2), ROC 2012 – Preliminary objection – Service of Notice of Appeal via email – Whether valid service – Order 62 Rule 6 (1) (cc) ROC 2012 – Service of documents via email in accordance with any Practice Direction issued – No Practice Direction issued to date – Whether it is a technical non-compliance – Whether can be cured pursuant to Order 1A ROC, 2012. 1 Appeal has no merit – Plaintiff offering Peer to peer financing facility platform – For businesses to borrow and investors to advance investment sums via Investment Notes - Claim against 1st Defendant for repayment of outstanding facility – 1st Defendant the issuer under the Investment Notes – Issuance of the Investment Notes facilitated and prepared by Plaintiff - Claim against 3rd and 4th Defendants as guarantors – Deed of Assignment entered into between Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant – To assign repayments of the finance facility assigned to 2nd Defendant – In consideration of the facility granted and continued to grant the facility to 1st Defendant - 2nd Defendant liable in the event of default by 1st Defendant – Whether repayments were novated to the 2nd Defendant – Pursuant to the Deed of Assignment – Section 63 Contracts Act, 1950 – Plaintiff accepted repayments from the 2nd Defendant – Whether Plaintiff estopped from claiming the outstanding repayments from 1st Defendant now – Section 42 Contracts Act 1950. 1 Akta Kontrak dan prinsip ejen -prinsipal - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen yang membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif - Plaintiff telah membawa tuntutan gantirugi terhadap semua Defenden apabila gagal menyediakan visa dan penerbangan mengerjakan haji - Defenden Pertama dan Kedua telah menawarkan peluang mengerjakan haji kepada semua Plaintif melalui Defenden Ketiga - Defenden Pertama dan Kedua merupakan Ustaz dan orang di percayai oleh Plaintif - semua urusan termasuk pembayaran di buat melalui Defenden Pertama dan Kedua - Plaintif tidak berurusan langsung dengan Defenden Ketiga sebagai syarikat pelancong yang dikatakan juga sebagai operator pakej haji 1 Isu yang berbangkit: (i) samada Defenden Pertama dan Kedua adalah ejen kepada Defenden Ketiga dan bertanggungan atas prinsip ejen-prinsipal ; dan (ii) samada Defenden Kedua telah memberi akujanji untuk menanggung dan menggantirugi semua kerugian Plaintif 1 Dapatan dan keputusan : (i) Defenden Pertama dan Kedua bukan ejen kepada Defenden Ketiga dan tidak bertanggungan bersama-sama Defenden Ketiga; dan (ii) Defenden Kedua tidak bertanggungan atas kenyataan di buat yang hanya bersifat satu janji moral dan bukan janji yang mengikat - tidak ada elemen balasan untuk satu kontrak yang mengikat - Keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen ditolak tanpa kos. 1 Amendment of Defence at the stage of trial. Enclosure 74 was a Notice of Application dated 23.09.2025 (“NA”) filed by the Defendants to amend their Defence dated 07.09.2023 (Enclosure 7). 2. The said NA was filed on 23.09.2025 and heard on 25.09.2025 on an urgent basis. The reason for the urgency was that the ongoing status of the case was already in the midst of trial (part heard since April 2025), of which the Plaintiff had already closed her case. The said NA was dimissed with costs of RM5,000.00 on 25.09.2025. 1 Plaintiff sub-contractor to the Project. Plaintiff took over the works from the main contractor (D1) with permission from the owner of the project (D2), whether a collateral contract exists between the owner of the project 1 Previous suits in Kuala Lumpur High Court and Sessions Court, whether Res Judicata applied 1 Expert Report - independence of expert questioned 1 Retention Money - party which entitled. 1 Variation of Work and Variation of Price - whether allowed 1 Conduct of D1 in relation to the variation of work. 1 Significance of the defect liability period 1 Interpretation of Contract - whether the variation of price clause applied. 1 "Sports and law of negligence - a professional football player was struck by lightning whilst attending training at an open field - there was effort to render CPR but there was no Automated External Defibrillator to assist in effective resuscitation - there was no doctor present at training session - player was transported to hospital by car - resuscitation achieved at the emergency ward - player passed away later due to Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy ('HIE') . 1 Plaintiff is the deceased's father suing as dependent and personal representative and/or administrator of the estate - Plaintiff claims negligence against the Defendants for failing to abide by FIFA Emergency Medical Manual Guideline which recommends the use of CPR and AED in resuscitating players suffering from sudden cardiac arrest and injury caused by lightning - FIFA Guideline not adopted and implemented by FAM and local licensed football clubs and associations at the material time 1 Plaintiff also claims breach of contract for failure to take out a Personal Accident Insurance as required under the terms of the Player's Contract and breach of undertaking to pay all salaries of the deceased for the remaining period of the Player's Contract - Plaintiff also claims for loss of financial support as parent - Plaintiff seeks reliefs including aggravated damages. 1 Issues: (i) whether there a duty of care owed by the football club to the deceased; (ii) whether the FIFA Guideline was binding on the Defendants; (iii) was there was a breach of that duty of care; (iv) there was causation between the lightning injury and the player's death or whether it was an Act of God; (v) whether there was a breach of contract and undertaking; and (vi) whether Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. 1 Findings: (i) there was a duty of care owed to the deceased to provide for a safe working environment and to provide for adequate emergency medical assistance - there was no attending doctor at training session and there was no AED - the duty of care was not dependent on the implementation of the FIFA Guideline by FAM and local football clubs/associations - there was no impediment for the Defendants to implement their own guideline to respond to medical emergencies - cardiac arrest is an injury that is reasonably foreseeable to occur amongst professional footballers - there were breaches of that duty of care - whilst the lightning did not cause immediate death it was the defendants' breach of duty of care that led to the HIE and eventually death - there was breach of contract to take out a Personal Accident Insurance in the deceased's name - There was no breach of undertaking - 1 Held: (i) Plaintiff had proven on balance of probabilities that Defendant's owed a duty of care to the deceased and that the duty was breached - finding of liability made in favor of Plaintiff - Award for damages for breach of contract and partial claim for loss of financial support - claims for aggravated damages denied. 1 The First and Third Defendants applied under Order 34 rules 1(3) and 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action for alleged non-compliance with pre-trial case management directions. 1 The High Court dismissed the application. 1 The Court held that although Order 34 confers a discretionary power to dismiss for non-compliance, dismissal is a severe sanction which extinguishes a cause of action without adjudication on the merits. The threshold for its exercise is therefore high. The power is protective, not punitive, and must be applied consistently with the principles of access to justice, fairness between parties and proportionality. 1 The Court articulated a structured approach in determining whether dismissal is warranted, including consideration of: 1. The nature and seriousness of the non-compliance; 2. Whether the conduct was intentional or contumelious; 3. Whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable; 4. Whether the applicant contributed to the delay; 5. Whether real and material prejudice affecting trial fairness was demonstrated; 6. Whether lesser sanctions would suffice. 1 On the facts, while there was delay in finalising the Agreed Facts, Issues to be Tried and Common Bundle of Documents, the delay was not contumelious. There was no unless order or express warning of dismissal. The Defendants had materially contributed to the delay and had failed to demonstrate serious or irremediable prejudice. Dismissal would therefore be disproportionate. 1 The application was dismissed, and the Plaintiff was directed to complete the outstanding pre-trial case management documents, with liberty to impose stricter sanctions in the event of further non-compliance. 1 Civil Procedure; Order 34 ROC 2012; Case Management; Pre-Trial Case Management; Dismissal for Non-Compliance; Discretion; Contumelious Conduct; Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay; Contributory Delay; Prejudice; Proportionality; Access to Justice; Lesser Sanctions; Supervisory Jurisdiction. 1 The Defendant sought leave to transfer estate funds from savings accounts into fixed deposits pending trial and proposed that the deposits be opened in his personal name to be held on trust. 1 The Court allowed the transfer in principle as a prudent measure to enhance returns but refused to permit the use of a personal account. Emphasising the fiduciary duty of strict segregation of estate assets, the Court held that estate monies must be placed only in accounts opened in the name of the estate. The application was allowed in part, subject to conditions ensuring transparency and accountability 1 Tuntutan Plaintif untuk perintah membatalkan Kaveat Pemegang Lien yang dimasukkan oleh Defendan - Tuntutan Balas Defendan untuk deklarasi bahawa Surat Akuan Bersumpah bertarikh 29.5.2019 dan 3.7.2019 adalah sah dan berkuatkuasa dan perlaksanaan spesific menurut terma surat akuan tersebu 1 "Ex-parte injunction - application by Defendants to set aside injunction - Plaintiff representing estate of Deceased who had entered into a joint venture agreement with the First Defendant in 2017 to develop some pieces of lands belonging to him - agreement requires development to be undertaken within 3 years from date of all approvals - Plaintiff claims First Defendant failed to perform the agreement and the lands remained undeveloped - Plaintiff seeks to terminate the agreement in the main suit - injunction to preserve status quo pending disposal of suit 1 Held: (i) there are serious issues to be tried; and (ii) balance of convenience lies with the Plaintiff more so when the Defendants are defending their rights under the agreement; (iii) damages would not be adequate compensation as the Plaintiff's claim is in rem against the property - Application dismissed with cost in the cause". 1 "Moneylender's Act 1951 - Plaintiff granted to the Second Defendant a loan amounting to RM3million pursuant to a scheme for the acquisition of shares in Second Defendant company - Clause 5 of the Loan Agreement provided for the imposition of interest at the rate of 7% per annum to be paid on monthly basis. In the event of default an additional 3% interest will be imposed - The Loan was secured by personal guarantees executed by the Third and Fourth Defendants and in addition to that charge of their shares in the Second Defendant - Second Defendant then agreed to enter into a joint partnership with the First Defendant - Plaintiff agreed to not object to that partnership in consideration of an undertaking given by the First Defendant on the settlement of the Second Defendant's loan - A settlement agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Second to the Fourth Defendants and repayment schedule was agreed - The Second Defendant only made part payment and failed to make further payments - The Plaintiff's claim is for RM2,357,498.22. 1 The main issue is whether the Loan Agreement is a moneylending transaction and guided by the Federal Court decision in Triple Zest Trading & Supplies & Ors v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd [2023] 6 MLJ 818/ [2023] 10 CLJ 187 whether the Loan Agreement is void ab initio notwithstanding that the loan is granted pursuant to a genuine acquisition exercise. 1 Held: Court is bound by the decision of the Federal Court. The provision of interest renders the loan as moneylending and is therefore void ab initio - The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs". 1 Originating summons-Order for sale Two 16D Notices. Proceedings filed before the statutory one-month period in the second 16D Notice expired. Whether the applicant can rely on the first 16D Notice. Whether issues of interest and dispute as to the amount owed can be raised in Order for Sale proceedings, which is a proceeding in rem. Whether there was compliance with the Moneylenders (Control and Licensing)Regulations 2003, Schedule K. Interpretation of section 2, MLA and Regulation 11. 1 This case concerns an application to stay execution of an Order for Sale granted under the National Land Code 1965. The validity of the Order was not challenged. The sole issue was whether the defendant had established special or exceptional circumstances to justify a stay. 1 The court reaffirmed that a stay of execution is discretionary and that a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of judgment. Relying on Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd v Koperasi Serbaguna Makmur Bhd and Ming Ann Holdings Sdn Bhd v Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd, the court held that speculative restructuring efforts, a non-binding Term Sheet, and alleged commercial prejudice to tenants do not amount to special circumstances. 1 As no concrete evidence of imminent redemption or secured funding was shown, the application was dismissed. The decision underscores the high threshold required to stay execution once a chargee’s statutory right to realise its security has crystallised. 1 Stay of execution; Order for Sale; National Land Code 1965; special circumstances; chargee’s rights; foreclosure; fruits of judgment. 1 Minority Oppression - to determine whether the Plaintiffs had made out a case under Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 1 Section 366 & 368 Companies Act 2016 - Application for leave to convene a Creditors' Meeting to present a scheme of arrangement and to restrain proceedings - Applicants proposed a revised scheme after an initial scheme proposed in an earlier application was withdrawn following opposition by creditors - Court had allowed both the secured and unsecured creditors' application to intervene and oppose the application - both secured and creditors are the same creditors described as scheme creditors under the scheme 1 Issues: (i) whether revised scheme is different and containing better particulars; (ii) whether particulars in revised scheme contains sufficient information for leave to be granted; and (iii) whether the Interveners' opposition to the application relevant to the determination whether leave ought to be granted 1 Findings: (i) revised scheme was not substantially different from previous scheme; (ii) revised scheme did not contain enough information and particulars to explain how the scheme will be executed and how funds will be raised to pay liabilities; (iii) the secured and unsecured creditors opposition to the revised scheme indicates the sentiment that will be carried to the creditors meeting and therefore the application is futile since the applicants will not be able to secure 75% votes of creditors present at the creditors' meeting. 1 Held: Application dismissed. 1 Derivative Action – Leave to intervene – Sections 345, 347 and 348 Companies Act 2016 – Shareholder dispute – Allegations of forged share transfers – Alleged forged resignation of director – Corporate mismanagement – Special audit report – Good faith requirement – Prima facie best interests of company – Shareholder seeking to take over company litigation – Existing company suit against local authority – Whether shareholder entitled to control company’s litigation – Limits of derivative intervention – Standing of complainant – Person claiming entitlement to be registered as member – Companies Commission of Malaysia records – Leave stage not a mini-trial – Corporate governance dispute – Board authority to conduct litigation – Minority shareholder protection – Distinction between grounds of complaint and relief sought – Application to expunge affidavit material – Order 41 rule 6 Rules of Court 2012 – Procedural requirement for formal application – Oral application from the Bar – Withdrawal of allegation on oath – Costs thrown away – Order 59 Rules of Court 2012 – Originating summons dismissed with costs. 1 This is an application by the Applicants for orders pursuant to Sections 145(1), 145(2) and Section 417 of the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC”) for a termination of a co-proprietorship of a piece of land. 1 "Strata Act 1985 & Strata Management Act 2013 - Plaintiffs have not received strata titles and brings action against Defendants seeking for orders to compel the Defendants to procure the strata titles - issues - (ii) Whether the First Defendant is the correct party to be sued since it has ceased to be the proprietor of the land at the time CCC was issued; (ii) whether the Second Defendant as the JMB can be compelled to cause the First Defendant or to act for the Plaintiffs to take action against the First Defendant; (iii) whether Plaintiff guilty of delay in bringing action and; (iv) whether calculation of maintenance charges correct. 1 Held: (i) First Defendant is wrong party to be sued; (ii) Second Defendant cannot be compelled to act against the First Defendant; (iii) Plaintiffs guilty of delay in bringing action; and (iv) issue of maintenance charges wrongfully brought before the Court - Application dismissed with costs. 1 Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ("BCPA"), Strata Management Act 2103 ("SMA") and Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 ("Regulations") - Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 - Application for judicial review against decision of Tribunal which ordered the Applicant to pay RM59,037.51 being outstanding maintenance charges, sinking fund charges, utilities charges and insurance charges - Application seeks order of certiorari against the decision of the Tribunal. 1 Applicant claims that the decision of the Tribunal was wrong on the following main issues: (i) failure of the 1st Respondent as the Joint Management Body ("JMB") to charge maintenance charges in accordance with allocated share units but instead on square foot basis; (ii) error in stating the correct number of parcels in Form 3 of the Regulations; and (iii) unlawful collection of charges. 1 1st Respondent claims: (i) the decision to impose maintenance charges on square foot basis was approved by the AGM after the developer had gone into liquidation and no surveyor was appointed to issue allocated share units as stated in section 2 of BCPA - the decision was made since the 1st Respondent was not empowered under the BCPA to issue share units unlike the SMA; (ii) the information contained in Form 3 was correct based on the decision of the High Court but was later set aside by the Court of Appeal - the 1st respondent held the view that they were not empowered under the law to amend Form 3 despite the decision of the Court of Appeal in deciding that 22 other units were parcels held under strata title and not common property; and (iii) the collection of utility and insurance charges are within the powers of the JMB 1 Finding: (i) the collection of maintenance charges on square foot basis was illegal - the JMB was not without avenue to refer the matter to the Commissioner of Buildings for directions and to seek consent to issue allocated share units; (ii) the JMB was wrong in not updating the information in Form 3 of the Regulations - although the law is silent on the issue, the duty to update Form 3 is part of the JMB's duties under section 8 (2) (g) of the BCPA; and (iii) the collection utility and insurance charges contravened the provisions of the BCPA and SMA. 1 Held: Application for certiorari allowed with costs. 1 National Land Code (Penang & Malacca Titles) Act 1963 ('Act') - Application for judicial review ('Application') - Applicants have been in occupation of Lot 6 Town Area XXVII, Melaka Tengah, Melaka ('Land') land since 1905 - A school now known as the Sekolah Kebangsaan Sacred Heart Convent resides on the land - Applicants claim that there was a title deed issued for the Land but was lost under the care of Reverend Father Alvaro Martins Coroado, representative of the Portugese Mission, who died during the Japanese occupation of Malaya - In 2014 the 1st Applicant began to communicate with the 2nd. Respondent seeking to secure a replacement title under the provisions of the Act - The 2nd Respondent failed or refused to issue the title citing several reasons - In 2023 the 2nd Respondent urged the Applicants to refer the matter to Court. 1 The Applicants then filed this Application against decision of Respondents in failing to issue replacement title - the Applicants claim that based on historical facts and documents the Applicants have a pre-existing interest in Lot 6 in accordance with the provisions of the Act - the Applicants also claim they have a legitimate expectation to have the replacement issued in their favor - the Applicants claim that the Respondents' failure or reluctance to issue the replacement title as an error of fact and law, irrational, illegal and procedurally improper - the Applicants seek, inter-alia, a declaration that the 2nd Applicant is the legal proprietor of Lot 6 and held the same for and on behalf of the 1st Applicant and an order to vest all legal interest in Lot 6 in favor of the 2nd Applicant. 1 The Respondents oppose the Application on the main ground that the Applicants have failed to prove that they have a pre-existing interest in the Land - it was argued that the historical facts and documents referred to by the Applicants only showed the fact of occupation but not ownership -there was also delay in making the Application - issue of laches and acquiescence 1 Held: Applicants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that that they have a pre-existing interest in the Land - the historical facts and documents showed the fact of occupation but did not prove legal and beneficial ownership interest in the Land - in addition, there has been a delay of not less than 18 years in making this Application - there was a failure to act and submit a claim in accordance with the provisions of the Act - legitimate expectation not proved - decision of Respondents therefore not illegal, irrational or procedurally improper - Application dismissed. 1 Pohon digunakan Alasan Penghakiman terkini ini kerana Untuk makluman, Yang Arif Datuk Mohd Radzi baru menyedari terdapat ketidakaseragaman dalam rujukan kepada perkataan "Portugese Commission" dan "Portugese Mission" serta ejaan berkaitan di dalam Alasan Penghakiman. Berikutan itu Alasan Penghakiman tersebut telah di perbaiki dan dikemaskinikan. Alasan Penghakiman Enclosure 57 pohon diabaikan. Pohon digunakan AP di Enclosure 58 sebagai rujukan rasmi. 1 Permohonan semakan kehakiman - Pemohon adalah penjawat awam yang telah dikenakan tindakan dan kemudiannya dihukum buang kerja - alasan tindakan adalah Pemohon tidak hadir berkerja untuk tempoh 73 tanpa kebenaran atau sebab yang munasabah - Pemohon mengatakan beliau tidak hadir atas alasan kesihatan dan masalahnya dalam pengetahuan pegawai atasan - Pemohon memohon untuk mengenepikan keputusan Lembaga Tatatertib dan Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam dan mengembalikan Pemohon semula ke jawatan terakhirnya tanpa kehilangan kekanan, kenaikan gaji, gaji, emolumen dan laian laian manfaat termasuk faedah persaraan. 1 4 isu utama telah dibangkitkan:: (i) kegagalan Lembaga Tatatertib memberi peluang kepada Pemohon mencabar atau menjelaskan pengataan Ulasan Ketua Jabatan; (ii) samada Lembaga Tatatertib perlu dan gagal membekalkan dokumen dan maklumat yang dirujuk di dalam Surat Tunjuk Sebab terhadap Pemohon; (iii) samada Lembaga Tatatertib perlu dan gagal meyediakan alasan keputusan dan memberi alasan itu kepada Pemohon bagi tujuan rayuan; dan (iv) samada Pemohon perlu diberikan hak mitigasi sebelum Lembaga Tatatertib menjatuhkan hukuman - Pemohon mengatakan semua kegagalan itu adalah kegagalan asas prosedur, melanggar hak asasi dan ketidakabsahan 1 Dapatan Mahkamah - terdapat kegagalan asas prosedur, ketidakabsahan dan pelanggaran hak asasi dalam semua isu yang dibangkitkan 1 Keputusan - Permohonan dibenarkan - keputusan Lembaga Tatatertib dan Lembaga Rayuan diketepikan - Pemhon dikembalikan ke jawatan akhirnya tanpa kehilangan kekanan, kenaikan gaji, gaji, emolumen dan lain-lain manfaat termasuk faedah persaraan. 1 These are the grounds of judgment in respect of this Court’s decision of 07.11.2025 to allow the Petitioner’s Winding Up Petition dated 28.11.2024 pursuant to Section 466 of the Companies Act 2016, and ordering that the Respondent be wound up with costs of RM7,000.00, subject to allocatur. 1 Sama ada bahagian Penghutang Penghakiman dalam harta pusaka mendiang TBG boleh digarnis bagi tujuan penyelesaian sama ada sebahagian atau keseluruhan hutang yang terhutang kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman. 1 "Section 323 CPC - Revision - Applicant was initially DNAA under first case for an offence under section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 after Prosecution failed to secure attendance of raiding officer - he was subsequently charged again for the same offence and he was DNAA also for the same reason - he was then charged again for the third time for the same offence and again the Prosecution's witness was absent - Defence Counsel sought for a discharge for acquittal but was refused - Prosecution insisted that it intended to continue with prosecution of the offence and did not state that it did not intend to prosecute further and request for a stay - Magistrate granted DNAA 1 Whether the Magistrate was correct in making the order to DNAA - application of section 254 CPC - whether re-charging the Applicant twice later on the same offence justified a DNAA - whether the Prosecution needed to state that it did not intend to prosecute further - discretion of the Court - whether accused prejudiced 1 Held: Prosecution's conduct showed unpreparedness and failure to conduct prosecution as required under section 376 CPC - allowing the Prosecution to charge the Applicant again without certainty if they can locate witness would be an abuse of process of Court - Applicant discharged and acquitted." 1 "Seksyen 39B Akta dadah Berbahaya - Keputusan di akhir kes Pembelaan - Petuduhan melakukan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 182 gram - Isu yang di bangkitkan termasuk samada dadah di jumpai pada Tertuduh atau didalam kereta, samada sitaan kereta menunjukkan kemungkinan dadah di jumpai didalam kereta, ketiadaan keterangan CCTV, kemungkinan penganiayaan terhadap Tertuduh - Setelah mempertimbang semua keterangan Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh gagal membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes Pendakwaan - Tertuduh gagal mematahkan anggapan perbuatan mengedar dadah di atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah. 1 Kepuusan: Tertuduh disabitkan dengan kesalahan - Hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan 12 sebatan". 1 Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya - Pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 10,898 gram - Keputusan di akhir kes Pembelaan - Isu utama adalah kegagalan pihak Pendakwaan menyediakan saksi yang ditawarkan kepada pihak Pembelaan. 1 Saksi adalah orang yang telah pada awalnya ditangkap bersama-sama Tertuduh tetapi dilepaskan dari Pertuduhan apabila kes dipindah ke Mahkamah Tinggi - saksi telah dipanggil oleh pihak Pembelaan di peringkat kes Pendakwaan untuk tujuan pengecaman - saksi tidak dipanggil oleh pihak Pendakwaan sebagai saksi-saksi itu ditawarkan kepada pihak Pembelaan - setelah Tertuduh diperintah memasukkan pembelaan pihak Pembelaan memohon pihak Pendakwaan mengemukakan saksi itu - pihak Pendakwaan gagal mengesan saksi itu - Pihak Pembelaan memerlukan saksi itu sebagai saksi material kepada pembelaannya. 1 Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan tidak memberi penjelasan yang memuaskan mengapa saksi tidak dapat dikesan - percubaan mengesan hanya pada minit terakhir sebelum tarikh perbicaraan - Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh telah diprejudis dalam mendapatkan perbicaraan yang adil - samada saksi itu material atau tidak hanya dapat ditentukan setelah saksi itu memberi keterangan 1 Keputusan: Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan dari Pertuduhan. 1 "Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Ketiga-tiga tertuduh dituduh melaklukan kesalahan mengedar 26,788 gram dadah berbahaya jenis methamphetamine - Tertuduh di katakan menaiki bot dan berhenti dipersisiran Pantai Klebang, Melaka - Barang dadah ditemui di atas bot bersesama kesemua Tertuduh 1 Sebeleum memberi keterangan pegawai serbuan telah memohon meminda rujukan tempat kejadian dari "persisiran pantai di kawasan Jeti Pulau Upih, Klebang, Melaka" kepada "persisiran pantai, Klebang, Melaka" - keterangan dokumentar Laporan Polis dan Borang Geledah tetap menyatakan tempat kejadian sebagai "di persisiran pantai di kawasan Jeti Pulau Upih, Klebang, Melaka" - tiada laporan pembetulan untuk membetulkan maklumat itu - 1 Dapatan : Terdapat percanggahan material antara keterangan lisan SP3 sebagai Pergawai Serbuan dan keterangan dokumentar - pihak Pendakwaan gagal mendapatkan penjelasan mengenai percanggahan itu - akibatnya terdapat 2 set keterangan yang bercanggah - banyak persoalan yang timbul mengenai dimana sebenarnya serbuan berlaku dan menenai milikan - kemungkinan berlakunya penyembunyian fakta/withholding of facts 1 Keputusan: Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie - Kesemua tertuduh dilepas bebas dari Pertuduhan. 1 Tertuduh Kedua di perintah memasukkan pembelaan terhadap Pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 39B ADB manakala Tertuduh Pertama dilepas bebas dan Tertuduh Pertama diperintah memasukkan pembelaan terhadap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 6 ADB." 1 Tertuduh Kedua diperintah memasukkan pembelaan terhadap Pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 39B ADB manakala Tertuduh Pertama di lepasbebas dan Tertuduh Pertama diperintah memasukkan pembelaan terhadap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 6 ADB." 1 This appeal concerned the unlawful arrest and detention of an Indian national during a police raid. Although accused of overstaying, an official circular permitted his continued stay in Malaysia due to the MCO. The High Court held that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, denied the chance to show his passport, and unlawfully detained, awarding damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court’s findings were properly supported by evidence and law, and that the Immigration Act justification was an afterthought, thereby affirming liability and damages. 1 Rule 18(4) (a) and (c) of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 - Court of Appeal Practice Direction No.1 of 2017 (PD-1 / 2017) - failed to include the material and mandatory cause papers that are crucial to the appeal - prejudice to the respondent as the respondent is unable to take further steps to respond to the Appeal - Rule 5 (1) Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 - failed to rectify the defects - Rule 3A Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 - Preliminary objection on the ground of non-compliance shall not be allowed - serious prejudice and substantial miscarriage of justice 1 Arbitration – Stay of court proceedings – Arbitration Agreement – Adoption by liquidator – Whether Director General of Insolvency required to adopt arbitration agreement under Section 49 of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Distinction between individual bankruptcy and corporate winding-up - Mandatory stay under Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Whether arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed – Doctrine of separability – Parties Autonomy - Survival of arbitration clause despite winding-up of company - Arbitrability – Dispute arising from pre-insolvency contractual rights – Whether arbitrable post-liquidation – Public policy considerations – Contrast with insolvency-specific remedies 1 Insolvency Law – Company in liquidation – Leave to proceed under Section 471 of the Companies Act 2016 – Whether arbitration may proceed without leave – Distinction between bankruptcy and corporate liquidation – Section 49 of the Arbitration Act 2005 inapplicable to companies. 1 Res Judicata – Interlocutory order – Stay order not appealed – Whether subsequent application to set aside constitutes re-litigation – Abuse of process – Principle of finality. 1 Section 340 of the National Land Code 1965 (NLC) - The Plaintiff's claim is for the registered title of the 1st Defendant and the registered charge held by Hong Leong Bank over the Property to be held defeasible on the ground that the transfer of the Property from the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant was fraudulent and that the title of the Property should be reverted to the Plaintiff. 1 Divorce petition, cross petition, custody, rate of maintenance, division of matrimonial assets, distribution, evidential burden of proof, love and affection, non-monetary contributions, sole guardianship, Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 1 cedera ditimpa pokok tumbuhan tumbang menunggang motosikal berhenti persimpangan lampu isyarat tuntutan gantirugi cuai perlanggaran tugas statutory menyelia/menyelenggara penyelenggaraan menghempap jalan persekutuan ditanam tanah rizab Majlis Perbandaran Seremban Bidangkuasa tanggungjawab diambil alih/beralih syarikat dilantik/diberi konsesi Kerajaan Malapetaka bencana alam (act of God) perjanjian liability bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya 100% liable kawasan elemen pengakuan fakta Majlis Tempatan selamat pengguna membersihkan mengalih halangan seksyen 101 Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976 lopak/lubang (potholes) kerosakan munasabah menyokong complement one another terkhilaf kecederaan imbangan kebarangkalian causation and remoteness keterangan top heavy batang mereput rapuh old brittle dry rotten disahkan/dipersetujui concurrent finding bicara dapatan kos melampau kuantum award manifestly excessive ditolak 1 Hukuman sebat di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1959, sama ada boleh dijalankan secara serentak, atau harus dijalankan berturut-turut;; kuasa dan budi bicara mahkamah. 1 seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - seksyen 118 Akta Keterangan 1950 - seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 - Evidence of child of tender years - culpable homicide not amounting to murder - kompetensi sebagai saksi kanak-kanak - tender years / kanak-kanak dalam usia yang mentah - sufficient intelligence - pembelaan bukanlah suatu pemikiran terkemudian (afterthought) – alibi - gagal untuk memberi notis kepada pihak pendakwaan pembelaan hanyalah bersifat penafian semata-mata (bare denial) - keterangan melimpah ruah - Keterangan berbentuk kemungkinan adalah sangat lemah 1 Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan – Seksyen 300(a) Kanun Keseksaan – Seksyen 300(c) Kanun Keseksaan – elemen niat untuk menyebabkan kematian – keterangan ikut keadaan – in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – mencukupi pada lazimnya untuk menyebabkan kematian 1 Akta Dadah Berbahaya - kawalan (control) atau jagaan (custody) serta pengetahuan (knowledge)- hasil pemeriksaan SP6 terhadap kereta tersebut juga telah menjumpai barangan peribadi OKT seperti lesen memandu atas nama OKT (Ekshibit P25), kad pelajar Universiti Tenaga Nasional No. ID: EN105250 atas nama OKT (Ekshibit P26) dan sekeping service note atas nama OKT (Ekshibit P27)- dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis yang dijumpai dengan bau yang kuat di dalam kereta tersebut yang mana tidak jauh dari tempat duduk pemandu- bahawa watak Nadiy yang di katakan telah membawa kedua dua beg yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya yang di rampas watak rekaan saja- OKT mahupun SD2 tidak pernah memberi maklumat terperinci watak Nadiy dan oleh yang demikian boleh disifatkan sebagai “no or insufficient Alcontara Notice”. 1 Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Accused charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs — an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - punishable under s 39B (2) of the Act -The Accused was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and 12 strokes of rotan — Whether defence cast reasonable doubt against prosecution case — Whether defence sufficiently considered by trial judge — Whether trial judge erred in his decision. Evidence — Agent provocateur — Admissibility of evidence — Whether agent provocateur's evidence should be accepted 1 Offence and Sentence: Section 12(2) DDA 1952, punishable under Section 39A(2) – 4 years' imprisonment, 4 strokes of whipping. 1 Appeal Issue: Magistrate did not explicitly state presumption at the end of the prosecution’s case. 1 Trial Judge’s Duty: Section 180 CPC – assess evidence, determine prima facie case, no requirement to state reasons or presumptions. 1 Presumption of Possession: Magistrate invoked presumption but mentioned it only in final decision – legally permissible. 1 Appellate Decision: No appealable error, conviction upheld, appeal dismissed. 1 Conclusion: No appealable errors that warrant our appellate intervention - the conviction against the appellant is safe - appeal is therefore dismissed. 1 Rayuan ini adalah terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Seremban bertarikh 2 September 2025 yang menolak permohonan Plaintif-Plaintif/Perayu-Perayu untuk meminda Pernyataan Tuntutan di bawah Aturan 20 Kaedah 5(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dengan kos dibayar kepada Responden. 1 Rayuan ini telah dikemukakan oleh Perayu/Defendan yang tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen bertarikh 05.07.2024 yang telah menolak permohonan Perayu/Defendan untuk mengetepikan Penghakiman Ingkar yang telah dimasukkan ke atasnya pada 05.12.2023 atas kegagalannya memfailkan Memorandum Kehadiran dan Pernyataan Pembelaan terhadap Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan. 1 Notis Rayuan ini telah difailkan oleh perayu/plaintif yang tidak berpuashati dengan Keputusan Mahkamah ini yang diberikan pada 25.6.2025 yang telah menolak rayuan Perayu/Plaintif terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Rayuan adalah terhadap kedua-dua isu liabiliti dan kuantum. 1 Rayuan ini bertitik tolak daripada ketidakpuasan pihak Perayu/Plaintif terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini yang telah memutuskan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa notis rayuan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Perayu/Plaintif terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Terpelajar (HMS) bertarikh 27 Jun 2023 ditolak dengan kos. 1 Tindakan ini adalah berkenaan pertikaian mengenai pemilikan hartanah antara Plaintif dengan Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua. Akibat dari pertikaian tersebut, Plaintif telah memfailkan tuntutan ini terhadap Defendan-Defendan untuk mendapatkan hak pemilikan hartanah yang dikenali sebagai PM 1516 Lot 6787 Mukim Labu, Negeri Sembilan seluas 12,594 kaki persegi bersama rumah satu tingkat yang didirikan di atasnya yang beralamat No. 141, Peringkat 3, Felda Sendayan, 17950, Seremban (hartanah tersebut). Pada 22.12.2024, Plaintif telah memasukkan kaveat persendirian melalui perserahan No. 2132/2023 di Pejabat Tanah Seremban untuk melindungi kepentingannya ke atas hartanah tersebut. Melalui notis permohonan di Lampiran 3, Plaintif telah memohon perintah untuk melanjutkan tempoh Kaveat Persendirian ke atas hartanah tersebut sehingga pelupusan tindakan ini. 1 Melalui tindakan ini, plaintif/perayu, selaku ibu kandung kepada bayi yang menjadi isu dalam tuntutan ini telah menuntut untuk membatalkan perintah pengangkatan bertarikh 3.1.2023 yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen Seremban yang telah membenarkan permohonan defendan pertama/responden pertama untuk dilantik sebagai ibu angkat kepada bayi tersebut atas alasan bahawa plaintif/perayu telah diperdayakan oleh defendan pertama/responden pertama untuk memberikan kebenaran menyerahkan bayi tersebut sebagai anak angkat kepada Defendan pertama/responden ertama. 1 Ini adalah notis rayuan yang telah dikemukakan oleh Perayu/Pihak Ketiga Kedua yang tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini yang telah memutuskan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa permohonan Perayu/Pihak Ketiga Kedua dilampiran 86 untuk mengenepikan penghakiman ingkar bertarikh 8.1.2024 yang telah dimasukkan terhadapnya ditolak dengan kos. 1 1. Tindakan ini melibatkan tuntutan oleh Plaintif untuk satu deklarasi bahawa dia adalah pemilik benefisial bagi hartanah yang dikenali sebagai No. 49, Jalan Seri Mambau A3, Taman Seri Mambau, 70300 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan ("Hartanah tersebut") dan Defendan sebagai pemilik berdaftar hanya memegang hartanah-hartanah tersebut sebagai “constructive trustee”. 1 1. Prosiding ini melibatkan tuntutan pihak ketiga yang difailkan oleh Defendan-Defendan terhadap Pihak-Pihak Ketiga bagi mendapatkan sumbangan atau indemniti terhadap penghakiman yang telah direkodkan terhadap Defendan-Defendan dalam tindakan utama. 1 This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs who are dissatisfied with the Court’s decision which has dismissed their claim against the Defendants with costs. The Plaintiffs who are owners of the units in the development called Sentral Bazaar is asking for an injunction order as well damages for the losses which they claim they have suffered as a result of the Defendants’ act of preventing them from entering the said units. 1 Permohonan di hadapan Mahkamah ini adalah Lampiran 17, iaitu Notis Permohonan oleh Defendan Kedua (“D2”) dan Defendan Ketiga (“D3”) untuk membatalkan Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Plaintif bertarikh 21.01.2025 di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a), (b), dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 Permohonan ini difailkan oleh Defendan melalui Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 7 untuk membatalkan Writ Saman Terpinda dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Plaintif-Plaintif bertarikh 26.03.2025. Permohonan ini dibuat di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) dan (d) serta Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 Tindakan ini melibatkan perebutan hak penjagaan kanak-kanak berusia 8 setengah tahun antara Plaintif-Plaintif yang merupakan Datuk, Nenek dan Mak Cik kepada anak perkahwinan dan Defendan iaitu bapa kandung kanak-kanak tersebut. Ibu kandung kanak-kanak tersebut telah meninggal dunia semasa anak berusia 2 setengah tahun. 1 1. Kes Saman Pemula melibatkan isu berkenaan pergelutan mengenai hak penjagaan dan lawatan anak-anak perkahwinan antara kedua-dua pemohon suami dan responden isteri. Kedua-dua notis rayuan telah dikemukakan oleh pemohon suami yang tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini yang diberikan pada 21.5.2025 terhadap notis-notis permohonan di lampiran 121 dan 135. 1 Rayuan ini telah dikemukakan oleh pihak pencelah yang tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan Mahkamah bertarikh 12.2.2025 yang membenarkan permohonan oleh pihak pemohon di kandungan 1 untuk :- i. Pengisytiharan bahawa Surat Kuasa Wakil (SKW) No. Pendaftaran 178/2012 bertarikh 17.2.2012 yang diikrarkan pada 10.12.2007 adalah tidak sah dan dibatalkan serta merta; ii. Pengisytiharan bahawa SKW No. Pendaftaran 178/2012 bertarikh 17.2.2012 yang diikrarkan pada 8.1.2008 adalah tidak sah dan dibatalkan; iii. Perintah mengarahkan Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Sembilan untuk membatalkan kedua-dua SKW tersebut. 1 Rayuan ini berdasarkan satu keputusan oleh Penolong Kanan Pendaftar (PKP) bertarikh 21.2.2025 yang telah menolak permohonan Saman Dalam Kamar oleh pihak Penghutang Penghakiman (“JD”) untuk antara lain, mengetepikan dan membatalkan Petisyen Kebankrapan bertarikh 17 Disember 2024 yang difailkan oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman (“JC”) terhadapnya. 1 This is an application by the Respondent Husband (hereinafter referred to as "the RH") via Enclosure 99 to vary the Court Order dated 9.8.2023. The RH seeks to reduce the monthly child maintenance following the completion of tertiary education by the eldest child of the marriage. Additionally, the RH seeks a refund of excess maintenance paid since the child’s graduation and a confirmation of the current arrears. 1 Rayuan ini adalah terhadap satu perintah pengkomitan yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah ini pada 15.1.2025. Melalui satu Notis Permohonan kand. 26, Perayu/Responden suami antara lain, memohon supaya Responden/Pempetisyen isteri Lim Enn 1 Notis Rayuan ini dibawa oleh pihak responden isteri (perayu) yang tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini yang diberikan pada 21.3.2025, di mana Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan untuk membenarkan permohonan pempetisyen suami (responden) di Lampiran 38 untuk mengubah perintah Dekri Nisi yang telah direkodkan secara pesersetujuan oleh kedua-dua pihak pada 28.12.2018. Bagi tujuan penyediaan alasan penghakiman ini, kedua-dua pihak akan dirujuk dalam kapasiti asal mereka iaitu, sebagai pempetisyen dan responden. 1 Dalam tindakan ini, perbicaraan penuh hanya dijalankan terhadap tuntutan Responden terhadap pihak yang dinamakan. Tuntutan pihak Pempetisyen terhadap Responden telah diselesaikan apabila kedua-dua pihak telah mencapai satu perjanjian penyelesaian. Pada 4.3.2024, kedua-dua Pempetisyen dan Responden telah merekodkan perintah penyelesaian tersebut dihadapan Mahkamah. Bagaimanapun, perbincangan oleh pihak-pihak untuk mencapai satu penyelesaian menyeluruh yang turut merangkumi terma-terma penyelesaian terhadap tuntutan Responden ke atas pihak yang dinamakan telah menemui kegagalan. 1 This case concerns an application by the Public Prosecutor for a stay of execution under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code following the striking out of a forfeiture application under the AMLATFPUAA. The application was dismissed. It was held that section 311 applies only where there is an executable judgment, order, conviction or sentence, which was absent in a mere striking out for procedural default. The Court further finds that a stay cannot be used to extend the statutory twelve-month lifespan of a seizure order. Allowing such relief would contravene Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. 1 Section 39B Dangerous Drug Act - The presumption under section 37(d) of the Act was invoked when the accused was called to enter his defence, the accused must rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities to earn an acquittal. Generally, in order to earn acquittal at the close of defence, the accused has the burden of raising a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. However, where the prosecution’s case is also based on a statutory presumption, the accused needs to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities. 1 The accused was originally charged for two separate offences of murder under section 302 of the Penal Code under a different case number. The prosecution has started the case by calling its first witness. When the case resume on the next date, the prosecution proffered a reduced charges for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code. In consideration of the victim impact statement from the deceased's own mother. The accused pleaded guilty to each reduced charge and was sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment from the date of arrest. The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run consecutively. 1 The accused was originally charged for two separate offences of murder under section 302 of the Penal Code under a different case number. The prosecution has started the case by calling its first witness. When the case resume on the next date, the prosecution proffered a reduced charges for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded guilty to each reduced charge and was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment from the date of arrest. The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run consecutively. 1 Judicial Review- Order Of Certiorari- Royal Malaysian Customs Department (Customs Department)- Imposition Of Sales Tax - Importation Of A Chemical Product- Exempted From Sales Tax- Section2 And Schedule A Of The Sales Tax (Goods Exempted From Tax) Order 2018- Tariff Classification - Goods For Evaluation- Anionic Surface-Active Preparations- Section 22A Of The Customs Act 1967- 10% Sales Tax- Bill Of Demand- Quash The Decision- Expert Opinion- Registered Chemist- Chemists Act 1975- Scientific Basis — Certificate Of Director General — Evidential Effect — Whether Chemist’s Report Must Be Produced— Duty Of The Court- Plain And Unambiguous Words — Effect Of “Notwithstanding” Clause - Sufficient Evidence Of The Facts Stated - Certificate Is Not Conclusive And Is Rebuttable- Burden Of Proof - Retrospective Recovery. 1 The Court of Appeal in this case held that the calculation of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) for late delivery of vacant possession begins from the date of payment of the booking fee, not the date of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). This follows the Federal Court’s decision in PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Ors. 1 Civil appeal – Judicial review application – Whether the Appellant has the right under section 124 of the National Land Code to challenge the variation of the express condition of the Subject Land – Whether the Appellant has the locus standi to commence this judicial review proceeding against 1st dan 2nd Repondents on the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ decision to allow the 3rd Respondent’s rezoning application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 – Whether the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 contains any provisions that would allow or prohibit a neighbour from participating in the rezoning process of the Subject Land - Appeal is dismissed 1 Pengambilan Tanah — Pampasan — Seksyen 12, subseksyen 36(2), 37(1), 49(1) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 — Penentuan jumlah pampasan bagi tanah yang diambil — Hak pemilik tanah di bawah Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Pentadbir Tanah — Kuasa dan Fungsi — subseksyen 12(1), 13(1) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 — Kuasa Pentadbir Tanah untuk menentukan nilai harga pasaran dan jumlah pampasan — Pelaksanaan fungsi kehakiman / (quasi judicial power). Tafsiran Statut — Tafsiran perenggan 4(a) Jadual Pertama Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 — Penetapan prinsip pampasan berdasarkan “nilai pasaran”. Doktrin Pilihan dan Estopel — semasa siasatan di hadapan Pentadbir Tanah — Sama ada pemohon terikat melalui pilihan atau estopel berkaitan laporan penilaian. Pampasan — Nilai Pasaran — Keterangan — Sama ada pampasan wajar ditentukan berdasarkan nilai harga pasaran pada tarikh pengambilan atau berdasarkan laporan penilai — Objektif/ tujuan mahkamah ialah untuk memastikan pampasan yang adil, berpatutan dan mencukupi kepada pihak berkepentingan. 1 Application for an order of certiorari to quash Notice of release of property seized pursuant to s. 60(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 – to quash the decisions of the IO and the DPP in issuing the Notices of Release and the instructions pursuant to the Notice. 1 PAM Contract 2006- delay-Liquidated ascertained damages (LAD)-Non-compliance with schedule-Whether contractor in breach-Whether termination of contract unlawful-Counterclaim for unpaid works-Final Account-Contractor’s entitlement-Commencement and completion dates-Condition precedent-Piling and utilities works-Delay in progress- Evidence-Res ipsa loquitur-Delay attributable to contractor 1 Appeal against the decision of the High Court in allowing the application for Judicial Review filed by the Respondents to quash the decision made by the Appelant through their letters dated 23 December 2021 issued to 4 bidders offering the sale of the Used Cooking Oil seized from the 1st Respondent on 26 May 2020 - Whether the Appellant has acted in accordance with the Malaysian Palm Oil Board Act 1998. 1 This is an appeal by the Appellant / Plaintiff against the decision of the High Court dated 24.09.2024 in dismissing the Plaintiff’s application with costs of RM7,000.00 vide Enclosure 311 to stay the High Court Judgment dated 26.06.2024 pending the disposal of the Appellant’s Civil Appeal No. P-02(NCvC)(W)-1305-07/2024 - whether there exist special circumstances that warrant a stay, which will render the 1st and 2nd Defendants being the majority 312,552 share units representing 75.61% of the total aggregate share units in Gurney Paragon (“the Development Area”) - whether 1st and/or 2nd Defendants had acted against the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”). 1 Suicide by detaineee while under remand- common law and statutory duty of care- negligence - misfeasance- Police Act 1967, Lockup Rules 1953, and Perintah Tetap- CCTV recording - break in the chain of causation- dependency claim- aggravated damages - vicarious liability. 1 Civil appeal – Tort of negligence and breach of statutory duties – issuance of CFs – expert evidence – The burden of proving its claims rest with the Appellants - Appeal is dismissed 1 leave of court is required in an action or a proceeding against a liquidator- that leave is required before an action can be filed against a liquidator of a wound-up company- 1 since the leave of court was not obtained before the OS was filed, the plaintiff’s OS is incompetent and should be disallowed- The powers of the liquidator in a winding up by the Court order is provided for by section 486 of the CA As a court appointed liquidator, the 1st defendant is an officer of the court, hence leave of court is required before any action or proceeding is taken against him The need for leave before any proceedings may be commenced against a liquidator is to ensure that he could carry out his statutory duty without having to defend any unnecessary litigation that may hinder the winding up process of a company 1 In view of the onerous statutory duty of a liquidator, there should not be any preference to any class of person who wishes to commence a proceeding against a liquidator 1 legal questions concerning the validity of a bifurcated management structure in a mixed development under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (“BCPA 2007”) and the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”). 1 whether the developer and the commercial parcel owners were legally entitled to institute a regime of separate management and maintenance of the commercial parcels and the common property within the commercial component, thereby confining the Joint Management Body (“JMB”) to the management of only the residential parcels and the common property appurtenant thereto. 1 Court to determine the consequences of such arrangements should the resolutions passed at the first annual general meeting be found ultra vires and void, specifically, whether the JMB, is entitled to demand the surrender and handover of the commercial common property, and to recover arrears of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions retrospectively from the developer’s management period through to the present JMB management period. 1 whether residential parcel owners, who had paid charges imposed pursuant to the impugned resolutions, may seek refunds of the sums paid, and whether the Court may instead order that such payments be credited or adjusted against lawfully determined charges to be fixed at a proper general meeting to be convened by the JMB. 1 statutory framework governing common property, the indivisibility of management responsibilities, and the legal effect of resolutions that purport to depart from the scheme mandated by the BCPA 2007 and SMA 2013. 1 This appeal concerned the termination of a joint venture for the development of land encumbered by squatters. The High Court held that the developer’s prolonged delay constituted a fundamental breach justifying termination. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that no repudiatory breach had been established and that the landowner’s unilateral termination was wrongful, having regard to the Supplementary Agreement requiring mutual termination. The delays were contributed to by both parties. Nonetheless, due to the complete breakdown of the parties’ relationship, the Court exercised its powers under s 69(4) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to terminate all agreements. 1 Civil appeal – Dispute regarding a will – Whether the learned trial judge erred in failing to consider that the said Property is a matrimonial asset of the deceased and DW3 – Whether the said Property is held on trust by the deceased for the Defendant, DW3 and ooi Ai Lin – Whether the will is a forgery – Appeal is dismissed 1 seksyen 353 Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 307(4) dan 307 (9) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah - Seksyen 310 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah - ketinggalan ini bukanlah sesuatu yang memudaratkan - punca utama kelewatan telah diperjelaskan dan kesilapan yang berlaku adalah suatu yang tulen, jujur dan suci hati dan tiada sebarang fakta material pun yang disembunyikan - keadilan substantial sepertimana kehendak seksyen 310 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah - society at large on whose behalf the public prosecutor acts 1 Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan – Pertuduhan kesalahan membunuh di bawah seksyen 302 dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kejadian membunuh berlaku di dua tempat - Seorang tertuduh mesti diberikan hak untuk menyoal balas saksi di bawah peruntukan s. 173(e) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – Hak untuk meletakkan versi pembelaan dengan lengkap di peringkat pendakwaan telah dinafikan – Tertuduh hanya dituduh selepas dinamakan oleh saksi semasa perbicaraan dan tiada rakaman percakapan diambil 1 Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman – Pengedaran dan pemilikan dadah berbahaya – Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Perayu disabitkan dan dijatuhkan hukuman gantung dileher sampai mati oleh Mahkamah Tinggi – Sama ada YA HMT telah membuat penilaian yang maksima ke atas keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan – Sama ada Perayu mempunyai kawalan, milikan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut – Sama ada YA HMT terkhilaf dalam menggunakan anggapan pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB setelah mendapati Perayu mempunyai milikan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut – Sama ada YA HMT terkhilaf apabila gagal menilai pembelaan Perayu yang disokong oleh SD2 mengenai dadah yang dikatakan milik seorang individu yang bernama Zaidi. 1 1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate, whereby the Magistrate allowed the Respondent’s claim of vacant possession of the Land be delivered to the Respondent. 2. The appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrate is affirmed and ordered accordingly. 1 The Writ action does not duplicate Civil Suit 6. When pleadings show a valid cause of action and indicate legal issues requiring detailed argument, the court should not dismiss the suit. Additionally, the court must determine if relevant factual matters require witness evidence; if so, it should not dismiss the claim under O 18 r 19 of the ROC 2012. 1 All civil appeals from a Subordinate Court shall be by way of re-hearing [See S. 29 Courts of Judicature Act 196 and Order 55 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012] (i) In Chan Lai Yoke V Ess Engineering Sdn Bhd. [2021] 1 LNS 1963, held that “Order 55 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides that all appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing. The White Book on the Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021 Volume 1, page 812 at paragraph 55/2/1 states as follows: In a re-hearing, a judge is not tasked to consider whether the lower court judge had exercised his discretion correctly or had properly considered the relevant material. He would consider the case as if it came before him for the first time.” 1 Preliminary observation of the right to appeal 1 This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court. 1 Before this Court proceeds with the full reasons for the decision of the appeal which has been ordered, this Court wishes to refer to the preliminary legal question for the Court of Appeal to be decided, namely whether the decision of the High Court is subject to Sections 3 and 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (‘the CJA’), and can be appealed at this stage. 1 In clarifying this issue, this Court relies on the decision of the Federal Court, namely in Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd (registered owner and licensee of the higher learning institution Lincoln University College) v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 2 MLJ 1. 1 Dalam membuat keputusan, saya merujuk kepada undang-undang yang mantap bahawa mahkamah ini tidak akan campur tangan dengan keputusan hakim mahkamah rendah melainkan hakim tersebut didapati telah salah (plainly wrong) dalam membuat keputusan. Merujuk kepada kes ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. K-SHIN CORPORATION SDN BHD [2022] 1 MLRA 151, mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- 1 [14] We were mindful of the limited role of the appellate court in relation to findings of facts made by the court of first instance. In the case of Lee Ing Chin v. Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 1 MLRA 95; [2003] 2 MLJ 97; [2003] 2 CLJ 19; [2003] 2 AMR 357 where the Court of Appeal held as follows: "... an appellate court will not, generally be speaking, intervene unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. But appellate interference will take place in cases where there has been no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence." [16] In the Federal Court case of Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 6 MLRA 193; [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 10 CLJ 1, Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ delivering the judgment of the court, held inter alia as follows:" (1) An appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless satisfied that he was plainly wrong. The 'plainly wrong' test operates on the principle that the trial court has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses on their evidence as opposed to the appellate court that acts on the printed records. 1 Appeal against the High Court decision in the issue of quantum. 1 The trial court awarded as regard to the Quantum - award for injuries was made on a global basis. Thus the Plaintiff appeal. 1 1. Appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) after a full trial. The appeal is founded on the liability and quantum awarded arising from a road traffic accident involving two motorcycles. 2. There were different versions of the collision, as well as inconsistencies in the evidence presented before the Court. 3. After hearing the appeal, this Court dismisses the appeal. 1 After hearing the arguments and also examining the reasons for the judgment of the Learned Session Court Judge, the Court decides as follows: 1 (i) Appeal against liability is dismissed and the decision of the SCJ is affirmed; 1 (ii) Appeal against General Damages is dismissed and the decision of the SCJ is affirmed; 1 (iii) Appeal against Exemplary Damages is allowed and the decision of the SCJ is completely set aside; 1 (iv) Other decisions of SCJ is affirmed; and 1 (v) No order as to costs. 1 Analisa dan dapatan Mahkamah 1 (1) Prinsip Rayuan 1 Prinsip undang-undang berkaitan rayuan adalah jelas dan mengikat Mahkamah ini. Prinsip asas sesuatu rayuan adalah mantap bahawa tiada campurtangan daripada Mahkamah Atasan kecuali terdapat salah tanggapan undang-undang yang telah dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Bawahan atau Mahkamah Perbicaraan. 1 2) Dapatan Mahkamah Atas Kuantum (i) Kehilangan Pendapatan Masa Hadapan (ii) Bil Rawatan di Hospital Swasta 1 Secara ringkasnya, memandangkan Plaintif mempunyai suatu kontrak yang sah dan mengikat antara Plaintif dan Defendan pada semua masa yang material, Defendan juga mempunyai pengetahuan penuh bahawa pada semua masa yang material cek-cek iaitu bayaran progresif No.1 – 6 telah dibayar kepada Plaintif oleh Defendan. SD 1 juga mengakui Ekshibit D19 merupakan suatu tuntutan Plaintif yang sah ketika perbicaraan di hadapan HMS yang mana jumlahnya adalah melebihi apa yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif. Oleh kerana tiada keraguan atas liabiliti tetapi hanya perbezaan jumlah, saya berpandangan tuntutan Plaintif selayaknya dibenarkan hanya setakat RM704,000.00 mengikut pliding walaupun jumlah terhutang yang diakui oleh SD1 di Ekshibit P19 jumlah hutang adalah RM753,280.00. Pada hemat saya adalah tidak adil untuk tuntutan Plaintif ditolak hanya atas sebab terdapatnya percanggahan jumlah tersebut sedangkan perkara pokok disini adalah hutang tertunggak sama ada telah dibayar atau sebaliknya. Saya juga dapati HMS telah gagal dalam penemuannya untuk menimbang pengakuan SD1 mengenai liabiliti dan bukti jumlah sebagaimana diplidkan oleh Plaintiff. Maka adalah tepat dan munasabah untuk Mahkamah ini membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan. 1 5. It is vital, in this post-trial Appeal, to review the law on appellate intervention. An appellate court should only interfere to disturb the findings of the first-instance court (here: the Sessions Court), if the Sessions Court was “plainly wrong”. 1 (1) The Sessions Court’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through “no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence”: citing UEM Group Bhd (previously known as United Engineers (M) Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2011] 1 AMCR 338 (FC); [2010] 9 CLJ 785; [2010] 2 MLRA 668; [2010] MLJU 2179. 1 (3) The Sessions Court’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through a “material error of law”: following Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 2600 (UKSC). 1 (4) The Sessions Court’s decision is “plainly wrong” if it “could not reasonably be explained or justified”, making it a decision “which no reasonable judge could have reached”: citing Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd & Anor Appeal [2018] 2 MLJ 177 (FC); [2018] 1 AMR 517; [2018] 2 CLJ 641; [2018] 1 MLRA 263. 1 (5) An appellate court is to evaluate whether the Sessions Court’s decision was “reasonably made”: paragraph 77 of Ng Hoo Kui (supra). 1 8. The “plainly wrong” principle, however, is not intended to be used as a catch-all method to replace the Sessions Court’s decision with my own (the appellate court’s) decision, on the facts of the case. The Federal Court in Ng Hoo Kui (supra) puts it this way— [76] What is pertinent is that, the ‘plainly wrong’ test is not intended to be used by an appellate court as a mean to substitute its own decision for that of the trial court on the facts. [78] Hence following this court’s ruling in Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra an appellate court should not interfere with the factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ where in arriving at the decision it could not reasonably be explained or justified and so was one which no reasonable judge could have reached. If the decision did not fall within any of the aforesaid category, it is irrelevant, even if the appellate court thinks that with whatever degree of certainty, it considered that it would have reached a different conclusion from the trial judge.[emphasis added] 9. Put differently, even if an appellate court finds, on the evidence and the facts of a case, that the appellate court would have come to a different decision, the appellate court, when it is deciding on the appeal, should not bypass an analysis of the first-instance court’s reasoning. 1 10. I must consider the Sessions Court’s appreciation of the evidence and the Sessions Court’s application of the principles of law, in the context of these elaborative tenets, to see if the Sessions Court has committed a fundamental error. 1 Summary of 1 Dalam membuat keputusan terhadap permohonan ini, saya telah meneliti prinsip-prinsip undang-undang yang mantap berhubung permohonan untuk mengemukakan keterangan baru di peringkat rayuan, sebagaimana yang digariskan di bawah Aturan 55 Kaedah 7(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012). Kaedah tersebut memperuntukkan seperti berikut: 1 "At the hearing of any appeal, fresh evidence shall not be admitted unless the Judge is satisfied that: [a] at the hearing in Subordinate Court, the evidence was not available to the party seeking to use it or that reasonable diligence would not have made it so available; and [b] the fresh evidence, if true, would have had or would have been likely to have a determining influence upon the decision of the Subordinate Court. 1 PRELUSION 1. The Plaintiff company (P) can be described as a joint venture company. It was a joint venture between the Defendant (D) and the other shareholders of P. 1 2. P was incorporated to venture into the education business. The Defendant bought shares in P. P alleges that D promised to transfer to P some manner of his know-how or intellectual property in education programmes. D denies that such a promise was made. 1 3. P asserts that when D did not transfer the alleged intellectual property to P, P suffered a loss. P alleges that it spent more than RM411K in expenses to promote and market its business, because it relied on D’s promise. 1 4. P sued D for this money. The Sessions Court dismissed P’s claim. P appeals to the High Court. Should P’s appeal be allowed or dismissed? 1 THE LAW ON APPELLATE INTERVENTION—THE “PLAINLY WRONG” TEST 5. It is vital, in this post-trial appeal, to review the law on appellate intervention. An appellate court should only interfere to disturb the findings of the first-instance court (here: the Sessions Court: SC), if the SC was “plainly wrong”. 1 (1) The SC’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through “no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence”: citing UEM Group Bhd (previously known as United Engineers (M) Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2011] 1 AMCR 338 (FC); [2010] 9 CLJ 785; [2010] 2 MLRA 668; [2010] MLJU 2179. 1 (3) The SC’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through a “material error of law”: following Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 2600 (UKSC). 1 (4) The SC’s decision is “plainly wrong” if it “could not reasonably be explained or justified”, making it a decision “which no reasonable judge could have reached”: citing Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd & Anor Appeal [2018] 2 MLJ 177 (FC); [2018] 1 AMR 517; [2018] 2 CLJ 641; [2018] 1 MLRA 263. 1 (5) An appellate court is to evaluate whether the SC’s decision was “reasonably made”: paragraph 77 of Ng Hoo Kui (supra). 1 8. The “plainly wrong” principle, however, is not intended to be used as a catch-all method to replace the SC’s decision with my own (the appellate court’s) decision, on the facts of the case. The Federal Court in Ng Hoo Kui (supra) puts it this way— [76] What is pertinent is that, the ‘plainly wrong’ test is not intended to be used by an appellate court as a mean to substitute its own decision for that of the trial court on the facts. [78] Hence following this court’s ruling in Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra an appellate court should not interfere with the factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ where in arriving at the decision it could not reasonably be explained or justified and so was one which no reasonable judge could have reach 1 Dalam rayuan ini Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada prinsip-prinsip berikut semasa pendengaran rayuan ini dengan mempertimbangkan Alasan Penghakiman dan juga fakta kes yang terlibat: (i) Prinsip Rayuan (ii) Prinsip Pembuktian (iii) Prinsip campur tangan Liabiliti (iv) Prinsip Pembuktian Kuantum 1 [9]Dalam membuat keputusan, saya merujuk kepada undang-undang mantap yang menjadi panduan kepada Mahkamah dalam mendengar rayuan. Dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seperti yang berikut: 1 "The law is clear in that the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is 'the plainly wrong test' principle. The principle encompasses differing and multiple circumstances but must necessarily apply, inter alia, to situations where it can be shown that the impugned decision is vitiated with plain material errors, or where crucial evidence had been misconstrued, or where the trial judge had so manifestly not taken proper advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses or not properly analysed the entirety of the evidence before him, or where a decision was arrived at without adequate judicial appreciation of the evidence such as to make it rationally unsupportable. This said, the criterion that is central to appellate intervention must remain that deference to the trier of fact is still the rule and not the exception; and the plainly wrong test ought not to be used by the appellate court as a means to substitute the impugned decision with its own". 1 I am guided by the trite law that the appellate court should not interfere with factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was “plainly wrong” or where there was no and/or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence. In the case of NG HOO KUI & ANOR v. WENDY TAN LEE PENG, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATES OF TAN EWE KWANG, DECEASED & ORS [2020] 10 CLJ 1, the Federal Court held as follows: - 1 “An appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless satisfied that he was plainly wrong. The ‘plainly wrong’ test operates on the principle that the trial court has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses on their evidence as opposed to the appellate court that acts on the printed records. In the UK, the test adopted by the appellate courts is not whether the higher courts feels that it would have reached a different conclusion on the same fact as the trial court, but whether or not the decision by the lower court on findings of fact was reasonable. If the trial judge’s decision can be reasonably explained and justified, then the appellate courts should refrain from intervention. 1 1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) after a full trial. The appeal is founded on the liability and quantum awarded in a road traffic accident based on the tort of negligence involving two vehicles. 1 2. After hearing the appeal, this Court allowed the appeal in part, that the Defendant is 100% liable, but dismissed the appeal on quantum. 1 Jadi Mahkamah ini, berdasarkan fakta kes mendapati adalah tidak wajar Defendan-defendan dipersalahkan sepenuhnya kerana Mahkamah mendapati bahawa terdapat sumbangan cuai oleh si mati sendiri atau daripada pihak lain seperti mana dalam Seksyen 10 (2) Akta Sivil 1956 seperti berikut: 1 Section 10 Proceedings against, and contribution between, joint and several tortfeasors (1) … (a) … (b) … (c)... (2) In any proceedings for contribution under this section the amount of the contribution recoverable from any person shall be such as may be found by the Court to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person's responsibility for the damage, and the Court shall have power to exempt any person from liability to make contribution, or to direct that the contribution to be recovered from any person shall amount to a complete indemnity. 1 1. Appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) that allows the Respondent’s claim for outstanding rental in the sum of RM885,052.01 arising from the rental of three (3) tower cranes (contract law). The SCJ also dismissed the Appellant’s counterclaim. 2. This Court is of the view that there is no error of law and facts from the decision of the SCJ. The appeal is dismissed. 1 For the record, this Court is also very sympathetic to the health condition and hardship experienced by the Appellant, but the provisions of law are clear. After considering both parties' submissions and the SOCSO Appellate Board’s Grounds of Judgment dated 17.06.2025, this Court finds that the reasons and facts of the entire case justifies the conclusion set forth below: 1 (i) the Social Security Appellate Board did not make an appealable error; and 1 (ii) the appeal is dismissed without costs and the decision of the Social Security Appellate Board is hereby upheld. 1 The Company failed to explore other disciplinary options that would have been suitable for the misconduct displayed by the Respondent. These alternatives could have included measures such as suspension without pay, a reduction in salary, or even demotion. As a result of this oversight, the dismissal of the Respondent cannot be considered to have just cause or proper justification. This Court finds that the company has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant was dismissed from his job or employment with just cause or excuse. 1 Therefore: (1) the Claimant appeal is allowed in part where the deduction to back wages due to contributory conduct of 10% ordered in the Industrial Court's Award No. 188 of 2025 is increased to 30%; and; (2) No order as to costs. 1 Medical negligence – Plaintiff suffered spinal cord injury from a road accident – Plaintiff has paralysis of both lower limbs and weakness of upper limbs – Whether defendants should have performed a decompression surgery immediately upon plaintiff’s admission to the hospital – In order to salvage the spinal cord and achieve a better neurological outcome – Instead of only a fixation surgery 4 days later – Whether plaintiff was stable enough to undergo the decompression surgery – Whether there was delay in administering treatment – Whether defendants acted in accordance with the standard medical practice. 1 On this issue, the Court adopted the maxim that “the opinion evidence is not conclusive, nor is it absolute.” The evidence is open to be challenged through cross- examination. In JASMAIR SINGH A/L PAJAN SINGH V BIR SINGH @ TEJA SINGH & ORS [2021] MLJ 328, the Court held that: “Expert evidence was not conclusive as it was merely opinion evidence used to assist the Court, and such expert evidence must not be used to compel the formulation of the judgment of the Court. The Court, in evaluating the expert evidence and after considering the credibility of the witnesses, must still come to its own opinion.” 1 Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan adalah atas perlanggaran Harta Intelek milik Plaintif, di mana Defendan-Defendan didakwa telah mempromosikan, menjual dan/atau mengedar produk Defendan Pertama yang mempunyai persamaan yang ketara dengan produk Plaintif melalui platform media sosial serta platform e-dagang di seluruh Malaysia tanpa sebarang kebenaran, persetujuan dan/atau pelesenan daripada Plaintif. Defendan-Defendan melalui Tuntutan Balas telah memohon agar paten Plaintif dibatalkan atas alasan tidak mematuhi keperluan di bawah Seksyen 11, 12, 13 dan 14 Akta Paten 1983, serta menuntut ganti rugi atas dakwaan fitnah berikutan beberapa penerbitan berunsur fitnah yang didakwa dilakukan oleh Plaintif. 1 Application to set aside judgment in default of appearance – whether judgment in default duly served on the Ddfendants - whether the application to set aside was made in compliance with O.42 r.13 ROC 2012, i.e. within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof - if no, whether application for extension of time to file the same was made by the defendants with reasons for delay averred in the affidavit in support - an application to set aside a judgment in default obtained, be it regular or otherwise, it must be done timeously – meaning of timeously or within reasonable time – whether failure to file application for extension of time and failure to explain delay of five (5) months from date of receipt of judgment in default amount to defendants guilty of laches and their conduct not bona fide 1 - Section 540 Companies Act – claim by Plaintiff against Directors of a company for debts of the company. 1 - Issues – a) whether the terms of the sales contracts bind the Directors b) whether the Directors are liable to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding sum owed by the company c) whether the conduct of the Plaintiff in withdrawing the claim against the company which has since been wound up with no proof of debt filed renders the claim against the Directors fatal as the debt itself has not been proven. - Held - a) there is no pre-condition in Section 540 that the debt against the company must first be proven. All that is required to invoke Section 540 is the intend of the Directors to defraud creditors. b) On the fact of this case the Directors are found to not to be bound by the sales contracts. c) the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Directors had no intention of paying the Plaintiff at the time the contracts were enter into especially since the company had paid a large portion of the debt. - Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs. 1 Having heard the submissions of both parties and considered the agreed issues, I am of the view that the main issue for determination is whether the SSA was validly terminated by the Plaintiff. The other related issues shall be addressed as and when necessary, in the course of this judgment. At the outset, I am mindful of the trite principle that he who asserts must prove. In this regard, the Plaintiff bears the legal and evidential burden to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a prima facie case against the Defendants. Only upon discharging this burden does the onus shift to the Defendants to establish their defence. In the case of Dr Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy s/o Sithambaram Pillai [1997] 2 CLJ 153; [1997] 3 MLJ 61, the Federal Court held: "Sections 101, 102, 103 and 106 of the Evidence Act 1950 deal with the burden of proof. Under s. 101, it is provided that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Under s. 102 the burden of proof lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Under s. 103, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Under s. 106, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him". 1 Claim by bank (plaintiff) against guarantor (defendant) in connection with loan facilities granted to borrower company – Whether the bank must exhaust other remedies before suing on the guarantee – Whether the guarantee was signed by the defendant – Whether the defendant’s signature on the guarantee was forged – Whether the defendant was still a director of the borrower company at the time of the execution of the guarantee. 1 - Full Trial – Plaintiff commences claim against three Defendants seeking inter alia a declaration that the Defendants have breached a settlement agreement. 1 - Whether there exists a settlement agreement to pay the sum between the Plaintiff and Defendants or whether the said settlement agreement only exists between Plaintiff and First Defendant? 1 - Whether the filing of a Proof of Debt by the Plaintiff against the First Defendants which have been wound estopps the Plaintiff from pursuing its claim against the 2nd and 3rd Defendant? 1 - Whether there was any basis to lift the corporate veil of the Defendants? 1 - The Court finds: 1 (a) that the debt was at all times due from D1 to P; (b) that there was no admission, assignment and/or assumption of D1’s debt by D2 and D3; (c) that at all material times, the settlement for the amount of RM2,893,205.00 originated from D1 and it was D1 who agreed to pay the said sum as settlement to P; (d) that there was no privity of contract between P and D2 and D3 in respect of the sum of RM2,893,205.00 nor in respect of the transfer of properties Nos.184 and 185 to P; (e) that the Defendants at all times operated as separate legal entities as opposed to a single economic entity and that therefore, there is no basis to pierce or lift the corporate veil to treat the Defendants as a single economic entity. 1 - The Plaintiff’s claim against D2 and D3 is dismissed with costs. 1 Interlocutory application – Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 against the Defendant for summary judgment. 1 - Whether there are bona fide triable issues raised to defeat the Plaintiff’s claim. 1 - The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to raise any triable issues before this Court. 1 - The Plaintiff’s application is allowed with costs. 1 - Application to set aside Judgment of Default of Appearance - whether there has been a delay and whether the JID is regular? - Whether there is a meritorious Defence? Application dismissed with costs as delay not reasonable and no meritorious Defence. 1 Full trial – Plaintiff sues on outstanding invoices for supply of ready mixed concrete to defendant – Defendant counterclaims for costs to remedy the construction issues arising due to the strength failure of the ready mixed concrete supplied by plaintiff – Whether plaintiff has fulfilled its contractual obligation by virtue of the prescribed Slump Test and Cube Test, for its supply of the ready mixed concrete to defendant – Or whether such obligation extend to passing the Core Test and other in-situ tests as alleged by defendant. 1 Application for summary judgment - Order 14 Rules Of Court 2012 - application for security for costs - Order 23 Rules Of Court 2012 and s.580A of the Companies Act, 2016 – averments in affidavits exchanged led to findings of contradictions and inconsistencies in the Statement of Defence - assertion or denial which is equivocal or lack in precision or inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents rejected by this court – no defence and/or triable issues raised - whether the elements of fraud, conspiracy and collusion, manipulation and/or falsification of payments were distinctly pleaded and its details specified in counterclaim – whether counterclaim set forth with clarity and precision the overt acts which are alleged to have been done by each of the alleged conspirators in pursuance and in furtherance of the conspiracy – for instance, “who, what, where, when, and how" the conspiracy to defraud occurred -pleadings are “rolled-up”, grouping named individuals together without clarity or precision - particulars of fraud, conspiracy and collusion must not only be pleaded but must be specifically pleaded - fraud must be distinctly set out and its details specified - vague and general averments of fraud, however strong, are insufficient. 1 - Plaintiff the wife of the Deceased claiming for Death Benefit under an Insurance Policy which was repudiated by the Defendant Insurance Company on account of non disclosure of material facts and a breach of uberrimae fidei. 1 Issues:- 1 (a) whether the Deceased had disclosed all material particulars of his illness to the 1st Defendant through the Defendants agent 1 (b) whether the Defendant is entitled to avoid the life insurance policy in view of the incontestability two year clause 1 Held: 1 (a) the Court concludes that the Plaintiff/Deceased had not disclosed the major illnesses to the Defendant prior to the issuance of the policy; 1 (b) the incontestability 2 year clause did not apply as the misrepresentation or omission were on material matters and fraudulently made or omitted by the policy owner. 1 (c) Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs. 1 - Summary Judgement – Order 14 Rules of Court - Claim for outstanding sums due under banking facilities. - whether letter of offer invalid on account of allegation that documents not explained and absence of legal advise. - No allegation of fraud or misrepresentation; - whether guarantor executed the guarantees; - whether corticate of indebtness is conclusive proof of debt? - Court finds no triable issues and allows Plaintiff’s application for Summary Judgment with costs. 1 Order 14 – Claim for goods sold and delivered – Whether goods defective – Whether agreement by plaintiff for defendant to make part payments continuously, without the need to settle the outstanding sum at once –Whether the late payment interest claimed by plaintiff is without basis and exorbitant. 1 Set aside action – Order 12 rule 10 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement between the parties – Submission to New York court and New York governing law – Whether Malaysian court has jurisdiction – Whether Malaysian court should exercise jurisdiction – Whether exceptional circumstances to displace exclusive jurisdiction clause – Forum non conveniens. 1 Foreign currency Clients’ Account - Rule 8.02 of the Rules and Rulings of the Bar Council - Rules 2 – 4 and 6 of the Solicitors’ Account Rules 1990 – whether monies received from clients and held in Clients’ Accounts belong to the clients or the law firm / an advocate and solicitor – whether Clients’ Account is a trust account – whether solicitor under an obligation to furnish or disclose to the bank any information or documents in relation to third persons beyond those already furnished by the solicitor in support of the remittance applications for payments from Client’s Account – whether bank entitled to set up jus tertii (the rights or interests of third party) against the solicitor as customer – whether s.141 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA 1976”) infringed – whether information and documents requested by bank are privileged under s.126 of the Evidence Act 1950 - whether refusal of bank to honour the said remittance applications amount to breach of mandate or authority of advocate and solicitor as customer and/or breach of contract 1 Claim by two plaintiffs against defendant for charter rental of two sets of barges and tug boats – Whether the plaintiffs each entered into individual contracts with the defendant via two fixture notes for the charter of the two sets of barges and tug boats – Or whether there was a single contract via a letter of confirmation – Whether the accident involving the first barge was caused by the negligence of the plaintiffs – Whether the ramp door of the second barge is fit for the purpose for which it was supplied to the defendant – Whether the termination of the charter by the plaintiffs is valid – Whether the defendant is entitled to the loss stated in the counterclaim. 1 - Full Trial – Claim by Plaintiff who rented warehouse from Defendant; - Robbery at Plaintiff’s warehouse – Plaintiff claiming losses of RM4,627,198.70 from the alleged breach of tenancy and/or negligence of Defendant’s agents; - whether there was an express or implied duty on the part of the Defendant to provide security for the premises generally and/or Plaintiff’s warehouse and whether there was vicarious liability; - Court finds that there is an implied duty on the Defendant as landlord to provide some form of security for the general premises but not for the Plaintiff’s warehouse especially since the Plaintiff had engaged their own security for their warehouse. - The Court finds the Defendant had provided adequate security for the premises and were not liable for the incident and therefore not required to indemnify the Plaintiff for their losses. - Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs. 1 O 21 r 3 of the ROC 2012 - Discontinuance of action with leave with liberty to file afresh – factors to be considered by the court before granting the order for discontinuance of an action – failure to provide any cogent or reasonable explanation to support its application for the discontinuance - the stage of the proceedings – whether Plaintiff would gain an unfair advantage over the Defendants by re-drafting and re-filing a new statement of claim, having the benefit of identifying and addressing the defects in its current pleading which is fatal to its case – which party is the dominus litis (i.e. master of the suit) 1 Full trial – the claim by the Plaintiff and counterclaim by the Defendant for alleged breach of contract between both companies with both alleging to have suffered loss and damage arising from each other’s breach/conduct. Issues: a. Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of RM 44,130.00 being the costs of scrapping of moulds and scrapping of formers at the WIP (work in progress) stage, which the Plaintiff had produced to be later delivered to the Defendant under PO 50? 1 b. Whether as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to deliver formers under PO 48A, the Defendant has engaged/entered into a contract with PT Mark Dynamics Pte Ltd, thereby incurring a loss for an amount of RM 583,800.00? 1 c. Whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant an amount of USD 3,760,000.00 which is the alleged loss of profits suffered by the Defendant as a result of the delay caused by the non-performance of PO 48A and PO 50? 1 Held: The Court finds that the Plaintiff had breached the terms of the agreement by failing to deliver the formers within the agreed time. 1 The Court finds that the Defendant is not liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of RM 44,130.00 being the costs of scrapping of moulds and scrapping of formers at the WIP (work in progress) stage. 1 The Court also finds that the Defendant has sufficiently established that the Plaintiff’s failure to deliver formers under PO 48A led to the Defendant to engage/enter into a contract with PT Mark Dynamics Pte Ltd for the supplies of formers, thereby incurring a loss for an amount of RM 583,800.00. 1 The Court finds that there is no sufficient evidence adduced to substantiate the claim of loss of profits. 1 The Court hereby dismisses the Plaintiff’s claim and allows the Defendant’s counterclaim for the sum of RM583,800.00 1 Plaintiff sues to nullify transfer of house from his late mother to his siblings (Defendants) – Defendants counterclaim for possession of the house, trespass and conversion of the items in the house – Whether the transfer was brought about by undue influence – Whether the Defendants abused the relationship of confidence by coercing the deceased mother. 1 Order 14 – Summary judgment – Claim by plaintiff for vacant possession of land – Plaintiff holds a TOL (temporary occupation licence) over the land – Whether defendant is a trespasser on the land – Whether defendant has a valid tenancy over the land – Whether defendant’s landlord is the beneficial owner of the land – Judgment in default against defendant was previously set aside – Whether plaintiff is estopped or res judicata applies, if the successful setting aside of the judgment in default means defendant has a defence on merits or there are triable issues. 1 1. This is a conventional interlocutory application for injunctive relief, albeit one brought by the Defendants, seeking to restrain the Plaintiff from allegedly disrupting the business operations of the First Defendant. 5. The issues arising from the respective applications before this Court engage a well-established analytical framework governing the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief. The Court is required to address, in a structured and sequential manner, a series of interrelated questions when determining whether the extraordinary remedy of an injunction ought to be granted or refused. 6. At the heart of this inquiry is whether the Defendants have satisfied the legal and evidential thresholds necessary to justify the continuation of injunctive relief, and correspondingly, whether the ex parte injunction previously granted ought to be sustained or set aside upon an inter partes consideration of the merits. 1 Claim for payment of commission – Oral agreement for plaintiff to find buyers for condominium units sourced by defendant from developer – Dispute regarding applicable rate of commission – Whether defendant has made payment of advance commission to plaintiff – Whether defendant has paid excess commission to plaintiff. 1 Interlocutory application – the application by the 1st Defendant to set aside judgment in default of appearance obtained by the Plaintiff. 1 Issues: - Whether the judgment in default obtained against the 1st Defendant is regular? - Whether the cause papers have been properly served on the 1st Defendant? - Was there an inordinate delay in filing this application? - Whether the 1st Defendant has shown that the defence has merits? 1 Held: - The Court finds that, based on the facts and circumstances as well as the sequence of events, the Judgment in Default obtained in respect of the 1st Defendant is regular and cause papers were properly served on the 1st Defendant at her address. 1 - The Court finds that the application was filed out of the 30-day prescribed time and no reasonable explanation was proffered as to this delay. 1 - The Court finds that there are no merits in the defence of the 1st Defendant. 1 - The Court hereby dismisses the application to set aside the judgment in default with costs. 1 1. This application, encapsulated in Enclosure 57, is brought by the Plaintiff seeking leave to amend its Statement of Claim. The proposed amendments concern only the Second and Third Defendants, a law firm and its sole proprietor respectively. 1 2. At first glance, the application may appear routine. However, the Second and Third Defendants have chosen to oppose Enclosure 57, thereby necessitating this Court’s careful consideration of the competing arguments advanced by the parties. 1 The Dominant Issue 1 3. The central question for determination is whether this is an appropriate case for the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting leave to amend. Put succinctly, the issue is whether the Plaintiff’s application offends any of the well-established principles under which such leave ought properly to be refused. 1 Defendant obtained CIPAA awards against plaintiff – Whether in breach of clause 9 of share sale agreement, which provides that defendant will only be paid by plaintiff upon recovery from the employers of the project – Whether clause 9 of share sale agreement is void for contravening section 35 CIPAA as a ‘pay when paid’ provision – Whether privity of contract – Whether res judicata. 1 1. Full trial - Plaintiff commences claim against ex-employee on multiple causes of action, i.e. breach of employment contract; breach of duty of confidentiality; breach of fiduciary duties and fidelity; unlawful interference with the Plaintiff’s business as well as the alleged wrongful conduct committed before and/or at the time of her resignation from the Plaintiff’s employment. 2. Court finds breach of employment contract, breach of confidential information an unlawful interference with the Plaintiff’s trade. 3. Injunction issued, as well as general damages and exemplary damages on a global basis. 1 In assessing D1's potential obligation to cover some or all of the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, this Court looks to the guidelines outlined in Section 10 of the CLA 1956, The following parts of Section 10 CLA 1956 are relevant: "Proceedings against, and contribution between, joint and several tortfeasors. 10(1) Where damage is suffered by any person as a result of a tort (whether a crime or not) - (a).................... (b)…...…………. 1 (c) any tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage may recover contribution from any other tortfeasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage, whether as a joint tortfeasor or otherwise, so, however, that no person shall be entitled to recover contribution under this section from any person entitled to be indemnified by him in respect of the liability in respect of which the contribution is sought. (2) In any proceedings for contribution under this section the amount of the contribution recoverable from any person shall be such as may be found by the Court to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person's responsibility for the damage, and the Court shall have power to exempt any person from liability to make contribution, or to direct that the contribution to be recovered from any person shall amount to a complete indemnity" 1 Full trial – Whether request for proposal by defendant and proposal from plaintiff constitute a binding contract – Whether the letter of offer issued by defendant to plaintiff is pre-mature – Whether the letter of offer was unlawfully revoked – Whether a document placed in Part A is representative of the truth. 1 Claim for vacant possession of a house and a motor vehicle by a mother (plaintiff) against her son and daughter-in-law (defendants) – Whether the house and the vehicle were gifted to the defendants – Whether occupation of the house and usage of the vehicle amounts to a gift – Whether payments of the outgoings of the house and the maintenance bills of the vehicle confers any interest – No transfer documents were executed – Whether gift, if any, is imperfect. 1 - Summary Judgment – Order 14 Rules of Court 1 - Claim for refund of monies paid – no Affidavit in Reply filed by Defendant 1 whether amount to admissions 1 - Whether matters pleaded in the Statement of Defence raise triable issues : 1 - Application allowed with costs. 1 Interlocutory application – application by the Plaintiff for an injunction restraining the Defendants and their agents from dealing with two pieces of lands in any manner pending the disposal of this suit. 1 Issues: a. Whether there are bona fide serious question to be tried?; b. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the injunction? c. Whether damages are an adequate remedy?; 1 Held: Court finds that there are arguably bona fide serious issues to be tried to determine the validity of the termination of the sale and purchase agreement and whether there was fulfilment of the conditions precedent within the CP period. 1 The Court however finds that the balance of convenience lies in favour of disallowing the injunction and that damages are an adequate remedy. 1 1. The Plaintiffs are lawyers. The First Plaintiff is Dato’ Seri Kumaraendran (DS Kumar). DS Kumar and the Second Plaintiff (Dev) are partners in their law firm. 2. One of their clients is Dr N. Jeganathan (Dr Jega). Dr Jega sued the Second Defendant (D2) in a debt recovery suit. 3. D2’s lawyer was the First Defendant (Albert). Albert was the sole proprietor of his law firm. Albert acted for D2 in Dr Jega’s suit against D2. 4. In the course of communication between them, Albert issued a letter dated 23.8.2021 to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert that the content (the words) of the letter has defamed them. They sued Albert and D2 for libel (for the words in the letter). 5. Albert has since passed away. The Plaintiffs discontinued their suit against Albert. But they continued their suit against D2. 6. Is D2 liable to the Plaintiffs for libel? Or does D2 have a defence that absolves him? 1 The security for costs is provided under Section 580A of Companies Act 2016 and Order 23 of the Rules of Court (ROC) 2012. Section 580A of the Companies Act provides that: - 1 Section 580A of CA (1) Where a company is the Plaintiff in any action or other proceedings and if it appears by a credible testimony that there is a reason to believe that the company will be unable to pay costs of the defendant if the defendant is successful in his defence, the Court may order the plaintiff to give sufficient security for costs and to stay all action or proceedings until the security is given (2) The Court may direct the costs of any action or proceedings to be borne by the party to the action or proceedings. 1 The Plaintiff is the registered lessee of the land known as Lot 12358, Mukim 12, Daerah Barat Daya, Penang held under Pajakan Negeri No. Hakmilik 5855 ("the land") and on part of the land there is a multi-storey factory cum office building with a total built-up area of approximately 50,000 square feet ("the Main Building"). 1 The Defendant rented the land together with the Main Building erected thereon from the Plaintiff pursuant to a Tenancy Agreement dated 9.3.2006 for the period 15.5.2006 until 14.5.2009. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an Annex Building Agreement dated 18.2.2009 ("the Annex Building Agreement") 1 Order 14A and Order 33 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether disciplinary action can be taken against the plaintiff, who was a member of the Main Committee of the Penang Swimming Club, which had decided on the complaint lodged by the 2nd Defendant – Whether the charge against the plaintiff is within the Rules of the Club and not ultra vires – Whether the plaintiff was given a right of hearing by the Disciplinary Committee of the Club in respect of the charge against him – Whether the requirement in respect of the EGM requisitioned by the plaintiff was complied with by the Club. 1 Interlocutory application – application by the Plaintiff for an injunction restraining the Defendants and their agents from retaking possession and/or to allow the Plaintiff continued access to the demised premises as well as to injunct the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff’s right as a tenant. 1 Issues: a. Whether there is a bona fide serious question to be tried?; b. Whether damages are an adequate remedy?; c. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the injunction? 1 Held: Court finds that there are bona fide serious issues to be tried to determine the validity of the tenancy arrangement and whether it was breached by the Plaintiff and/or whether its termination is lawful. 1 The Court however finds that the balance of convenience lies in favour of disallowing the injunction that the Plaintiff’s claim is pecuniary in nature and that damages are therefore an adequate remedy. 1 Full trial – Whether oral agreement for a tenancy of 10 years – Whether defendant breached promise regarding a ten year tenancy – Whether contravene section 213(1)(a) of the National Land Code that a tenancy exceeding 3 years is deemed a lease and must be registered – Whether defendant breached section 7 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 by evicting plaintiff without a court order – Whether plaintiff failed to comply with Order 18 rule 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 by quantifying the claim for general damages. 1 Copyright infringement – Plaintiff installed ODOO ERP system for defendant – Defendant downloaded and migrated the ODOO ERP system from Plaintiff’s hosting server to another hosting server – Whether breach of duty of confidentiality – Whether plaintiff owns copyright in the ODOO ERP system – Whether plaintiff commissioned the ODOO ERP system – Whether the source code of the ODOO ERP system was tendered in evidence – Whether the ODOO ERP system is an open source software – Whether plaintiff may rely on GNU Lesser General Public License. 1 Striking out – Action brought by plaintiff with respect to the estate of his late mother – Plaintiff did not obtain a grant of probate or letters of administration – Whether plaintiff has locus standi – Whether any special circumstances to clothe plaintiff with locus standi qua beneficiary to preserve the deceased estate – Whether the defendants are executor de son tort for intermeddling with the deceased estate – Whether plaintiff should be appointed as administrator pendente lite. 1 Dispute over property – Whether defendant holds property on trust for plaintiff – Whether constructive trust – Whether unjust enrichment – Whether undue influence. 1 1. D (insurer), by the provision of section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA), applied for a section 96(3) declaratory order to declare that the contract (policy) of insurance between D and the rider and owner of the motorcycle was void and unenforceable. 1 2. Plaintiff filed suit to challenge the validity of the section 96(3) Declaratory Order, on the ground of fraud (on the part of the D (insurer). 1 3. Should the section 98(3) declaratory order be set aside or should it be sustained? 1 The Plaintiff is a company incorporated on 27.5.2014 and the nature of business is “To provide internet program and internet solutions for on-line transaction of all types”. The 1st Defendant and one Lau Kean Leong (SP1) are the directors with equal shareholding of the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant also is the director and shareholder of the 2nd Defendant, a company established by the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant submitted that due to SP1’s failure in his duty as Managing Director & Director of Marketing and Finance in that the failures to pay the salaries of employees including the 1st Defendant for almost 2 years, the 1st Defendant was forced to come up with a new strategy to market the Flexi Parking app without the involvement of SP1. The 1st Defendant sent proposals to a number of municipal councils to offer them to use the Flexi Parking App for free, where the revenue of the Flexi Parking App, would be generated via advertising. As a result of such efforts, the 1st Defendant was introduced to a concession holding company that is Suasa Efektif (M) Sdn Bhd and able to introduce the Flexi Parking app in Sepang in August 2016. Despite the continuous efforts of the 1st Defendant, his salary between September 2015 and December 2016 was only paid in 2 months which later led the 1st Defendant to resign from the Plaintiff. 1 - Full Trial – claim by Plaintiff against Defendant sub-contractor for damages/losses and LAD pursuant to termination of contract; counter claim by Defendant for work done under such contract. - Issues – whether the Defendant had failed in his obligations and the termination valid resulting in the Plaintiff incurring losses; whether the Plaintiff is entitled to LAD; whether the Defendants claim is barred by res judicata due to previous CIPAA proceedings; - Court finds the termination valid due to Defendants unsatisfactory performance whereby the Plaintiff entitled for the losses incurred in having to continue and complete the project. The Plaintiff not entitled to LAD as not proven. Defendant counter claim not barred by res judicata but Defendant has failed to prove his counter claim. - Plaintiff claim allowed in part. Defendant’s counter claim dismissed. 1 Saya berpendapat bahawa isu utama yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah dalam kes ini adalah sama ada SPA bertarikh 3.7.2017 merupakan: [a] Satu perjanjian jual beli yang sah dan berkuatkuasa di sisi undang-undang, yang melibatkan penjualan hartanah oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif; atau [b] Sebenarnya merupakan suatu transaksi pinjaman wang yang tidak sah, iaitu suatu pinjaman wang tanpa lesen yang melanggar peruntukan undang-undang berkaitan pinjaman wang berlesen. 1 1. This is a somewhat unusual case involving the Plaintiff, who, not once but twice, advanced substantial loans to the First Defendant. The Plaintiff has instituted the present action against both the First and Second Defendants, the First Defendant being a partner in the Second Defendant firm. 1 2. The present application, encapsulated in Enclosure 8, is the Defendants application for the Second Defendant to be struck out as a party pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012. This Court dismissed the Defendants’ application for the Second Defendant to be struck out as a party after a hearing on 27 October 2025. 1 3. Notwithstanding the clear wording of section 68(1)(f) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which provides that no appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal where a High Court has dismissed an application to strike out any writ or pleading, the First Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on 24 November 2025. 1 4. While it may be contended that an appeal in such circumstances is statutorily impermissible and liable to be dismissed at the threshold, the First Defendant will undoubtedly rely on the recent decision of the Federal Court in MT Ventures Sdn Bhd v QM Print Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal [2025] 6 MLRA 595; [2025] 6 MLJ 471; [2025] 7 AMR 573; [2025] 9 CLJ 560 to advance the argument that not every unsuccessful applicant in a striking-out application is necessarily precluded from pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The question of whether the present appeal falls within any of the permissible circumstances delineated by the Federal Court is ultimately a matter for determination by the Court of Appeal. 1 5. The present concern of this Court is confined to Enclosure 8, and these are the grounds of decision of this Court in dismissing Enclosure 8. 1 Administrator pendente lite – Plaintiff applied to be appointed as administrator pendente lite of his late mother’s estate pending disposal of contentious probate action – Whether plaintiff is a suitable person to be appointed as administrator pendente lite – Whether it is necessary to appoint an administrator pendente lite to preserve, manage and protect the assets of the estate in the interim, pending the determination of the probate action – Whether the assets of the estate had been misappropriated by the defendants – Whether the defendants were intermeddlers or executors de son tort of the assets of the estate. 1 This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the question of frustration arose only when the Defendant, in its defence in 2018, argued that Lot 775 could not be developed. Since the issue of frustration was raised by the Defendant only in 2018 and the Plaintiff only submitted the amended SOC in 2018 itself, it is clear that no question of limitation arises, and there is no question of the time-barring of the Plaintiff's action, since it is filed in the same year as the frustration issue. 1 In any event, if we look at the five notices of ratification issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the first notice was issued on 13.11.2014 and last one was dated 26.01.2017. The last reply by the Defendant was on 08.02.2017; and the notice of termination was issued on 03.10.2017. The Court found that, according to the chronology of the dates, they are still within the time-limit set by Section 6(1) (a) of the Limitation Act 1953. 1 1. The Notice of Application dated 30 July 2025 in Enclosure 9 concerns the Plaintiffs’ application to secure a sum of RM2,698,902.83, which the Plaintiffs assert was withdrawn by the Defendants from the First Plaintiff’s accounts. 1 2. Upon the conclusion of the hearing of Enclosure 9 on 13 October 2025, this Court allowed prayers 1 to 6 thereof but disallowed the alternative prayer 7 seeking an order that the sum of RM2,698,902.83 be paid into court. The Court further permitted each of the two Defendants to withdraw a monthly allowance of RM5,000.00 from the disclosed accounts and ordered costs in the cause in the sum of RM5,000.00 for each Defendant. 1 3. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 13 November 2025 against the decision of this Court dated 13 October 2025. 1 4. These are the grounds of judgment in respect of Enclosure 9. 1 Striking out – Plaintiffs sue to recover property transferred to defendants – Whether action is time-barred – Whether claim is barred by laches and acquiescence – Whether plaintiffs have waived and are estopped from alleging any irregularities in the transfer of the property. 1 The requirement for compliance is contained in the SPA. Therefore, the action for failure to comply with the said statute is still due to the SPA. The Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs is allowed to bring this action for the said non-compliance if the provision was not expressly stated in the agreement or was not part of the said agreement. Without the SPA, the Plaintiffs would not have had the legal capacity to file a civil lawsuit against the Defendants under Regulation 11 and Schedule G of the Housing Development (Licensing & Control) Regulations 1989. 1 Breach of contract – Contract for the supply of machines by plaintiff to defendant– Whether any outstanding sum owing by defendant to plaintiff – Whether defendant is liable for the forfeiture of downpayment made by plaintiff to its suppliers – Whether the agreement for payment of liquidated damages by plaintiff to defendant is void – Whether defendant must return the liquidated damages payment to plaintiff – Counterclaim by defendant – Whether defendant is entitled to liquidated damages for late delivery of the machines – Whether defendant is entitled to a refund of the payments made for the machines – Whether defendant is entitled to claim ancillary supporting costs of running the factory. 1 Striking out – Plaintiffs seek to revoke the letters of administration granted to their mother and to remove her as administrator – Plaintiffs failed to issue a citation under Order 72 rule 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether such failure is fatal to the action – Whether the plaintiffs’ claim for salaries as directors of the family company should be made against the company, and not against the defendants – Whether the plaintiffs should be given permission to manage the family company – Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to motor vehicles belonging to the estate of the deceased. 1 Discovery of documents – Plaintiffs (as the beneficiaries of the estate of their late father) sues to remove the defendants (as the executors of the estate) – Whether the defendants are in breach of fiduciary duties for failure to render full and proper account of the estate –Whether the assets of the estate are fully disclosed in the list of asset in the grant of probate – Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the documents pertaining to the cash in hand, bank accounts, income and medical report of the deceased – Whether the documents are necessary for a fair disposal of the matter. 1 The Applicable Law / Provisions 1 In this Judgment, the relevant provisions which will be discussed are as follows: 1 (i) Order 14A of the ROC 2012 1.Determination of questions of law or construction (0. 14A r. l) (1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that- (a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and (b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein. (2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just. (3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question. (4) The jurisdiction of the Court under this Order may be exercised by a Registrar. (5) Nothing in this Order shall limit the powers of the Court under Order 18, rule 19 or any other provisions of these Rules. 2. Manner in which applications under rule 1 may be made An application under rule 1 may be made by a notice of application or, notwithstanding Order 32, rule 1, may be made orally in the course of any interlocutory application to the Court. 1 (ii) Order 33 Rule 2 of the ROC 2012 1. ……… 2. Time of trial of questions or issues The Court may order any question or issue arising in a cause or matter, whether of fact or law or partly of fact and partly of law, and whether raised by the pleadings or otherwise, to be tried before, at or after the trial of the cause or matter, and may give directions as to the manner in which the question or issue shall be stated. 3. …….. 4. ……… 1 (iii) Order 33 Rule 5 of the ROC 2012 5. Dismissal of action after decision of preliminary issue If it appears to the Court that the decision of any question or issue arising in a cause or matter and tried separately from the cause or matter substantially disposes of the cause or matter or renders the trial of the cause or matter unnecessary, it may dismiss the cause or matter or make such other order or give such judgment therein as may be just. 1 Action by plaintiff to recover land that was transferred to defendant – Whether the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) is a genuine sale and purchase of land transaction – Whether the SPA is a sham transaction based on an illegal moneylending scheme – Whether any valid consideration given by defendant pursuant to the SPA – Whether defendant’s title to the land is defeasible – Whether the transfer of the land by plaintiff to defendant should be set aside – Whether the transfer of the land is based on a void instrument of transfer. 1 1. This suit is about two Wills. The deceased testator (Father) wrote a Will in March 2014 (2014 Will). Under the 2014 Will, Father bequeathed (gave) the family home at No. 1 Jalan Scott, Penang, as well as his watches and jewellery to his younger daughter: the Second Plaintiff (Charmaine), and his residuary estate (the rest of his assets) to his wife (Mother). 1 2. But if Mother predeceased (died before) him, Father gave his residuary estate to his four children in equal shares. 1 3. The other three children are the First Plaintiff: the elder son (Mark), the Defendant: the younger son (Andrew), and the elder daughter: Samantha, who is not a party to this suit. 1 4. In this suit, the most pertinent asset is Father’s 20,000 shares in the family’s company: Tai Chuan Realty Sdn Bhd (Tai Chuan). These Tai Chuan shares are a part of Father’s residuary estate. 1 5. Under the 2014 Will, if Mother predeceased Father, then Father’s 20,000 shares in Tai Chuan would have been shared among the four children equally. Each of them would have inherited 5,000 shares. 6. Mother passed away in July 2014. 1 7. Later, in 2017, Father wrote another Will (2017 Will). The 2017 Will was different to the 2014 Will. Under the 2017 Will, the family home was still given to Charmaine. That has not changed. But the watches and jewellery were given to Mark and Andrew. 1 8. More importantly, Father’s 20,000 Tai Chuan shares were specifically given to Andrew only. This would make Andrew the single biggest shareholder in Tai Chuan among the siblings. 1 9. This change in Father’s Will is the subject of Mark’s and Charmaine’s grievance. 1 10. Mark and Charmaine sue Andrew— (1) to declare the 2017 Will invalid and to have it revoked; (2) to declare the 2014 Will valid and enforceable, and for probate to be given for it; (3) for damages. 1 11. Andrew counterclaims against them— (1) to declare that the 2017 Will revokes the 2014 Will; (2) for probate to be granted for the 2017 Will; (3) to remove Mark and Charmaine as executors of the 2017 Will. The three of them are co-executors. This prayer is no longer at issue, as it was dropped (withdrawn) at trial. (4) for Andrew to be appointed the sole executor under the Will (which it also dropped, and hence not at issue). 1 12. The question that will determine this suit is: Is the 2017 Will, Father’s valid and enforceable last Will? 1 1. The Plaintiffs commenced the present Writ action against the Defendants in May of this year at the High Court of Malaya at Penang. Since then, the matter has been marked by a series of interlocutory applications filed by both sides, with the cause papers now numbering no fewer than 108. The applications thus far include those by the Plaintiffs for injunctive relief and discovery, and by the Defendants for security for costs. 1 2. The applications presently before this Court, namely, those filed in Enclosure 9 (by the First Defendant), Enclosure 13 (by the Fourth and Fifth Defendants), Enclosure 17 (by the Second and Third Defendants), and Enclosure 25 (by the Sixth Defendant), now fall for determination. These applications are brought pursuant to Order 12 rules 10(1)(a), 10(1)(g), 10(2), and 10(7) of the Rules of Court 2012, whereby the Defendants seek orders that the Plaintiffs’ Writ be set aside in limine and in its entirety. The applications raise a threshold issue that goes to the very root of this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the action. 1 3. What renders these applications particularly distinctive is that unlike the more familiar situation in which defendants challenge jurisdiction on the basis that they are sued in a forum where they neither reside nor conduct business, thus invoking the principle of private international law that one ought to be sued at the natural forum, the Defendants in this case are sued precisely in the forum where they reside and carry on business. Yet, they now contend that the action ought properly to have been instituted in either Taiwan or the Cayman Islands, notwithstanding considerations of cost or inconvenience. In essence, the Defendants’ contention is that the High Court of Malaya at Penang is not the appropriate forum for the Plaintiffs’ claim. 1 4. The central issue for determination is whether this Court ought to decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that Malaysia is not the appropriate or convenient forum for the dispute, and, if so, whether the Plaintiffs’ Writ ought to be set aside 1 Striking out – Order 18 rule 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether plaintiff is guilty of forum shopping – Whether plaintiff had knowledge of an earlier suit filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court on the same subject matter – Whether plaintiff should have counterclaimed in that suit, instead of filing a new suit in the Penang High Court – Whether plaintiff’s application for transfer of this suit to the Kuala Lumpur High Court is an abuse of process of court. 1 Early termination of tenancy agreement by tenant (plaintiff) – Tenant sues for refund of the deposits – Whether termination is lawful – Whether a contractual clause allowing termination if tenant suffers a critical failure in business or operations at the demised premises could be invoked – Whether tenant is liable for the unpaid rental in respect of the remaining term, the costs of repair works and reimbursement of the PDC consent fee counterclaimed by landlord (defendant) – Whether landlord is entitled to forfeit the deposits – Landlord counterclaims against the directors of tenant for fraudulent trading – Section 540 of the Companies Act 2016 – Whether the directors carried on the business of tenant with intent to defraud landlord. 1 Application for an order for security of costs under O.23 r.1 and O.92 r.4 of the Rules Of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) - Plaintiff’s failure to comply with various court orders which resulted in arrears of maintenance and court-awarded costs to the 1st Defendant which traced back to the year 2012 – no reasonable explanation adduced on the failure to pay maintenance and court-awarded costs - owing to Plaintiff’s past conduct in not complying with the Orders of Courts, it is highly likely that the 1st Defendant would not be able to recover any costs in the action herein - trite law that merits of the Plaintiff’s case are irrelevant to the 1st Defendant’s application for security for costs 1 This Court will interpret the Order 14A of the ROC 2012 in accordance with its true meaning i.e. “nothing in this Order shall limit the powers of the Court under Order 18 rule 19 of the ROC 2012 or any other provisions of these rules” rather than the views of the parties. In the particular case of AURA INDAH JAYA SDN BHD V OCBC BANK (M) BHD [2021] 10 MLJ 21, this Court quotes the following decisions: “With great respect to the plaintiff’s counsel, this court cannot apply Humpty Dumpty’s logic when he told Alice: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ – Humpty Dumpty/Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll” 1 Arbitration — Agreement — Arbitration or litigation — Construction of arbitration clause in light of phrase “legal proceedings” used — Whether word ‘shall’ used in arbitration clause connoted reference to arbitration as mandatory and not optional — Whether parties original intention to refer dispute to arbitration abandoned by supplemental agreements — Whether failure to give a notice of arbitration would be a lack of procedural legitimacy — Whether filing of the Memorandum of Appearance a step in the proceedings — Whether parties estopped from referring dispute to arbitration under Arbitration Act 2005 s 10(1)(a) 1 Application to set aside a judgment in default of defence - O. 13, r. 8 and O. 42, r. 13 of Rules of Courts 2012 - breach of Rule 56 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 - legal test for an application for judgment in default of defence is the same as application for setting aside a judgment – applicant must produce evidence by affidavit showing he has a good defence on the merits - plea of res judicata is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide but also covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised 1 Defamation is acknowledged as a tort in Malaysian law, indicating it is a civil wrongdoing that may result in legal proceedings. For a Plaintiff to prevail in a defamation case, they need to establish and prove three essential elements. 1 (i) that the impugned statement is defamatory in nature; (ii) that the impugned statement refers to the Plaintiff; and (iii) that the statement was published to a third party. 1 Analysis and findings 1 The Law on Striking out 1 (i) Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v UMBC [1993] 3 MLJ36 (ii) Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v Che Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors. [2012] 1 CLJ 75; [2012] 1 MLJ 473 (iii)Mohamed Yusop Bin Abdul Wahab v American Express (M) Sdn. Bhd. (2002) 6 MLJ 507 (iv) Boey Oi Leng v Trans Recourses Corporation Sdn, Bhd. (2002) 1 CLJ 405 at 410 (v) Mooney & Ors v Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company & Anor (1967) 1 MLJ 87 1 Injunction – Interim injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing statements defamatory of the plaintiffs – Whether damages would be an adequate remedy – Where the balance of justice lies. 1 In conclusion, the preliminary objection raised by the Defendant is that the Plaintiff does not fall within the definition of "domicile" as provided under Section 3 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Therefore, it is the Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff does not have sufficient legal standing to bring a claim under the provisions of the said Act. 1 Referring to the case of YAP YEN PIOW v. HEE WEE ENG [2016] CLJU 1060; [2016] 1 LNS 1060; [2017] 1 MLJ 17, where the Court ruled that: "...assets which does not fall into the category of matrimonial property but acquired by the sole effort of one spouse during the subsistence of marriage which we have referred to as non-matrimonial property but may qualify as matrimonial assets pursuant to s. 76 (3) of the LRA 1976. When it relates to matrimonial property, the division of the assets is a well-recognized principle in Malaysia. However, when the assets fall under the category of non-matrimonial property, the division is not permissible as of right unless the Act clearly says so or provides for a methodology to do so. That is to say, for matrimonial property, the division is of right but non-matrimonial property the division is not as of right.” 1 Application to set aside order for sale and to strike out the foreclosure proceedings under O 28 r 4(1), O 32 r 6 and O 18 r 19(a), (b), (c), and/or (d) of Rules of Court - plea of res judicata is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide but also covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised - order for sale of charged land is a final order unless appealed against - once such an order has been made, drawn up, and perfected, the judge is functus officio and has no jurisdiction to set it aside 1 Application for order for sale under s.256(3) of the National Land Code (NLC) by chargee bank – chargor applied to strike out the same under Order 18 rule 9 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 - court under a duty to grant order for sale unless “cause to the contrary” shown - cogent explanations given by chargee bank to justify differences between the amounts shown in the statement of accounts by chargee bank as opposed to the on-line bank statements of chargor - valuation report of property not required under Order 83 Rule 3(2) - any subsequent payments by chargor that do not cover the defaulted amount and / or the accrued interest is not a basis to say the statements of account inaccurate or that there is a cause to the contrary – in the absence of manifest error, statements of accounts are conclusive evidence of the indebtedness of the chargor to charge bank by virtue of Clause 7.18 of the Charge Annexure – allegation of breach of contract by chargee (while it may give rise to an independent action in personam) is insufficient per se to defeat the ad rem rights of a chargee under his registered charge to an order for sale 1 Joinder of a co-defendant – Injunction to restrain suspended employees from entering the premises, from concealing the company documents, to deliver up all accounting records in their possession and from blocking the directors and the court-appointed auditor from accessing the premises – Whether risk that the suspended employees may destroy evidence – Directors right of inspection – Whether managing director was suspended as an employee or as a member of the board. 1 Companies Act 2016 - sections 302 to 306 of the Act - members’ power to require circulation of written resolution - circulation of written resolution proposed by members - validity of the pre-approved / pre-agreed written resolution – whether failure of board of directors to circulate proposed written resolution affects validity of the written resolution by virtue of s.303(5) of the Act – whether shareholders can unilaterally circulate written resolution – whether s.306(4) of the Act is a standalone provision which forms an exception to the preceding provisions 1 1. This Originating Summons in Enclosure 1 concerns an application by the Plaintiff under section 346 of the Companies Act 2016, seeking reliefs against what he alleges to be acts of oppression and unfair prejudice in the conduct of the affairs of Siangpack Sdn Bhd (“the Company”). 1 2. The Plaintiff, a minority shareholder of the Company, contended that the Second to Sixth Defendants, being the majority shareholders and directors, have managed and conducted the affairs of the Company in a manner that is oppressive to him and disregards his interests as a member. 1 3. The Defendants, in turn, denied any allegation of oppressive or unfair conduct. They maintained that all actions taken were bona fide and within the proper exercise of their powers as directors and shareholders. 1 4. Against this backdrop of competing assertions, the central issue for determination is whether, on the facts and circumstances before this Court, the conduct of the Defendants constitutes oppression, unfair discrimination, or prejudice against the Plaintiff within the meaning of section 346 of the Companies Act 2016; and, if so, whether the Court ought to intervene to grant the reliefs sought to bring an end to the matters complained of. 1 1. The Amended Originating Summons in Enclosure 15 is, in substance, the Plaintiff’s application for a Fortuna Injunction. 1 2. At the conclusion of the hearing of Enclosure 15 on 28 October 2025, this Court allowed the main relief sought by the Plaintiff but dismissed the alternative relief. In particular, the Court declined to grant the Plaintiff’s alternative prayer for general damages, aggravated damages and/or exemplary and/or punitive damages to be fixed and/or assessed by the Court and to be paid immediately by the Defendant. 1 3. Being dissatisfied with the said decision dated 28 October 2025, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 25 November 2025. 1 4. These are the grounds of judgment of this Court in allowing the main relief sought by the Plaintiff. 1 5. The overarching issue for determination is whether this is an appropriate case for this Court to exercise its discretion to grant a Fortuna Injunction. Central to that inquiry is the characterisation of the debt relied upon in the Statutory Notice, namely, whether it is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds or remains undisputed. 1 Derivative proceedings under s.347 of Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) – application for leave under s.348(2) CA 2016 - application for abridgment of time from the 30-day notice requirement to date of filing of application – whether it is a mandatory and compulsory requirement under s.348(2) CA 2016 – whether non-compliance of same is fatal – whether non-compliance of such notice can be treated as a mere irregularity - whether it is open for the court overcome it with the curable provision – whether s. 582(4) of CA 2016 applies 1 Plaintiff (insurer) seeks to void third party motor vehicle insurance policy – Insured (registered owner of the vehicle) had already passed away when the policy was renewed – Whether breach of duty of utmost good faith – Whether any insurable interest to take out the policy – Defendant was injured in a road accident involving the insured vehicle – Whether defendant is an innocent third party who should be compensated pursuant to section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 – Regardless of contractual dispute concerning non-disclosure or capacity to contract, which is a matter between the insurer and the insured – Whether plaintiff failed to act as a prudent insurer when issuing the policy – Whether plaintiff is in breach of Schedule 9 of the Financial Services Act 2013. 1 Sale and purchase of shares on the stock exchange of Bursa Malaysia – Applicant (seller) seeks declaration that respondent (buyer) has breached the share sale agreement, due to failure to pay the purchase consideration before the expiry of the completion period – Respondent counterclaims for refund of deposit – Whether implied term by trade usage and past conduct that respondent is obliged to instruct her remisier to initiate the share transfer transaction by contacting applicant’s remisier and entering a buy order into the trading system – Whether direct business transaction or open market automated trading – Whether respondent is liable to pay liquidated damages to applicant. 1 Fortuna injunction - requisite conditions for the issuance of same – whether the intended winding up petition has no chance of success or is premised on a disputed claim – whether presentation of a winding up petition will cause irreparable damage to the company rather than by a more suitable alternative procedure – whether a statutory notice issued pursuant to s.466 of the Companies Act 2016 (“said s.466 Notice”) was based on a bona fide disputed debt – whether the said s.466 Notice is valid since it is premised on a valid and enforceable judgment - definition of commercial insolvency or unable to pay its debts - it is irrelevant whether the intended winding up petition will cause irreparable damage to a company when it is premised on a undisputed valid and enforceable judgment 1 s.76 of the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”) for the appointment of an administrator to manage the strata parcels - EGM held on 12.10.2024 was improperly convened i.e. in contravention of SMA 2013 - no valid management committee and that the management of the building has become chaotic and mismanaged ever since – Commissioner of Buildings and Strata Management Tribunal ruled EGM together with all the resolutions passed thereunder, including the resolution for the appointment of members of the management committee, as invalid – whether solicitors appointed by management corporation has locus standi / authority to represent management corporation - whether appointment of an administrator under s.76 SMA 2013 justified 1 Striking out – Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the defendants from breaking the foundation stones of a temple – Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the land given by the Penang Development Corporation (“PDC”) to the Penang Hindu Endowments Board (PHEB) is meant for relocating the temple from its old site to the said land – Whether the PDC is obliged to provide an alternative site to relocate the temple from its old site to the said land – Whether the plaintiff could accept the offer of land contained in a letter from the PDC to the PHEB – Whether the PHEB’s title to the said land is defeasible. 1 Order for discovery and production - O. 24 r. 7 and r.12 as well as O. 92 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) – order for inspection – O.24 r.11 ROC 2012 - does not fall under the purview of O. 24 r. 7 and r.12 ROC 2012 - wrong provisions of law relied upon in support of application to seek an order for inspection of document – Respondent is a non-party to proceedings in the ongoing civil suit, a notice of application for the discovery of the said document against the Respondent should have been filed pursuant to O.24 r.7A instead of O. 24 r. 7 – to allow production and inspection would tantamount to an abuse of the process of the court in the form of evidence tampering in the quasi-criminal trial 1 Claim for possession of land – Whether originating summons appropriate mode – Whether substantial dispute of fact – Whether the defendant is a bare licensee – Whether the defendant has rights over the land on a trust to operate a meditation centre and to carry on religious activities. 1 Originating summons – Whether the land indenture dated 22.3.1901 is still valid – Whether the terms of the Indenture subsist – Whether the trustees of Persatuan Wadda Gurdwara Sahib, Pulau Pinang may be registered as proprietors of the land – Whether the approval of the TYT Governor of Penang is required for the appointment of new trustees – Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi – Whether the certified true copy of the Indenture is lawful. 1 Injunction – Defendant obtained an order for sale of land – Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop the public auction of the land – Whether the injunction has become academic as the public auction did not proceed on the scheduled date – Plaintiff seeks a declaration that a consent judgment is valid and binding – Whether plaintiff has locus standi as he is not a party to the consent judgment – Whether the consent judgment remains effective as it has not been set aside – Whether there is a breach of the consent judgment by the defendant. 1 1. The Originating Summons in Enclosure 1 is an application by the Plaintiff for the recovery of land presently occupied by the Defendants. The Plaintiff has invoked Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, which provides a summary and expedited procedure enabling a landowner to recover possession of land from trespassers or unlawful occupiers without the necessity of a full trial. 2. This Court heard the application on 17 November 2025 and allowed the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 1, with costs fixed at RM5,000.00. Being dissatisfied with this Court’s decision dated 17 November 2025, the Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal vide Enclosure 24 on 11 December 2025. 3. These are the grounds of judgment of this Court in respect of the Originating Summons in Enclosure 1. 1 Originating Summons - to set aside auction and maintain status quo of property auctioned - grounds based on existence of a mareva injunction – whether auction held contravened the mareva injunction – whether chargee bank to provide a copy of the Proclamation of Sale of the property to chargors – whether failure of same prejudiced the chargors and their interest in the property – whether chargee bank failed to act in good faith - section 258 1(b) of the National Land Code – whether successful bidder a bona fide purchaser for value without notice 1 Committal proceedings – Whether the members of the management committee of the defendant (management corporation) had breached a court order – The court order compels the defendant to strictly enforce the house rules and the by-laws – By prohibiting the residents from parking their vehicles on the common property – Whether personal service of the court order and the committal papers is required – Whether service on defendant’s former solicitors suffice – Whether the penal notice is defective. 1 Removal of caveat – Plaintiff sues to remove caveat lodged by defendant – Whether defendant has caveatable interest – Whether plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice – Whether the land may be sold through private treaty when an order for sale had been made. 1 s.145 of the National Land Code (NLC) 1965 – application to terminate co proprietorship of land and partition land – whether to allow this application prior to the disposal of another civil suit would prejudice the parties in that suit who may hold legitimate interests in the said land - to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, abuse of process and also by reason of res judicata - whether to deny Plaintiff its rightful ownership of portion of land would bring grave injustice and prejudice - termination of co-proprietorship is in the best interest of parties, in that there will be clear demarcation of the majority and the minority shares of the land - whether relationship between the co-proprietors has reached a stalemate – whether a co-proprietor deprived of the use/enjoyment of land 1 s.228 and s.418 of National Land Code (NLC) - Application for renewal of a lease of 99 years - whether .s.76 and s.197 of the NLC are the correct provisions for renewal of lease - averments raised for the first time in submission but absent in affidavits are clearly an afterthought and a tactical manoeuvre – application of Pekeliling Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Bilangan 1/2023 titled “Dasar Permohonan Pelanjutan Tempoh Pajakan Dan Permohonan Pemberimilikan Disebabkan Tempoh Pajakan Telah Tamat” (“said Guidelines”) – whether Land Office erroneous in rejecting application for renewal of lease made four months before expiry thereof 1 Interlocutory application – application by the Respondent to set aside the Order under Sections 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and Order 69 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 - Setting aside the Court Order recognising the Arbitration Award as binding on the Respondent. 1 - Failure to produce as at the date of Hearing a duly certified copy of the English translation of the Arbitration Agreement – whether fatal? 1 - Application to set aside the Court Order allowed with costs. 1 1. The Plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the subject property, had charged the said property in favour of the First Defendant as security for banking facilities extended to it. Following a default, the First Defendant obtained an Order for Sale. The present Originating Summons in Enclosure 1 constitutes the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Order for Sale granted by the Second Defendant on 23 January 2025. 1 2. Arising from the parties’ grounds and submissions, two central issues stand for determination in this appeal. The first concerns the validity and sustainability of the preliminary objections raised by both sides. The second relates to the substantive merit of the appeal itself. These issues form the framework within which this Court must assess whether the impugned Order for Sale ought to be affirmed or set aside. 1 Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966 - Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 - whether the developer in granting extension of time for payments of arrears in progress billings under the Third Schedule to the Sale & Purchase Agreement (Schedule H) (SPA) coupled with the non-imposition of late penalty interests, varied the statutory provisions of the SPA, thus rendering the extension and non-imposition of late penalty interests unlawful, void, and has no legal effect - whether the said acts by the developer amount to affirmation of the SPA - whether the defence of waiver as raised by the purchaser apply in that the developer is now estopped from terminating the SPA 1 1. This is an application by the Plaintiff, as contained in Enclosure 1, seeking an order for the removal of a private caveat lodged by the Defendant against a parcel of land which the Plaintiff successfully purchased at a public auction. Although the Plaintiff has been declared the successful bidder, the registration of the property in the Plaintiff’s name has been impeded by the subsistence of the said private caveat. 1 2. As expected, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have advanced arguments in support of their respective positions. 1 Central Issues 1 3. The core issues for determination in this case is whether the Plaintiff has established, to the satisfaction of this Court, that it is an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of section 327 of the National Land Code, and whether the Defendant has satisfied the legal requirements for the entry and continued subsistence of the private caveat in question. 1 “ Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958- sections 4 & 5 - registration and setting aside; Singapore High Court judgement by casino- registered;application to set aside; Issues- whether delay in application,whether the singapore judgment was calable of being enforced in singapore, whether contrary to public policy. Application to set aside dismissed with costs.” 1 5. The sole issue arising for determination in Enclosure 1 is whether this is an appropriate case for the Court to exercise its discretion to extend time for the Plaintiff to file a Notice of Appeal out of time. 6. At its core, the application raises the question whether the Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the prescribed time limit under the Rules of Court 2012 for filing a Notice of Appeal should attract the consequence of refusal of an extension, thereby bringing finality to the litigation, or whether the circumstances justify the grant of indulgence so as to permit the intended appeal to be heard and determined on its merits. 7. Stated differently, the Court is required to strike a balance between the competing imperatives of procedural discipline and finality on the one hand, and the interest of substantive justice on the other. It is within this tension that the Plaintiff’s application for an extension of time falls to be determined. 1 1. The lodgement of a private caveat over land belonging to another individual or entity serves the legitimate purpose of protecting the interests of the caveator. However, such a mechanism must not be abused. Where a caveat is shown to be unjustified, the caveatee is entitled under the law to seek its removal, and may also pursue damages against the caveator for any loss suffered. 1 2. The present application, filed via Originating Summons in Enclosure 1, illustrates the judicial responsibility that arises when a party asserts what it believes to be a legitimate interest warranting the lodgement of a private caveat, and that assertion is subsequently challenged by the registered proprietor. In this instance, the Plaintiff, as the caveatee and registered proprietor, seeks the removal of private caveats lodged by the First Defendant over nine separate parcels of land. The Second Defendant is named in these proceedings in its statutory capacity under the National Land Code. 1 The Fundamental Issue 1 3. The central issue for determination in this Originating Summons is whether the private caveats lodged by the First Defendant ought to be removed. This question is to be considered in accordance with the statutory framework under the National Land Code, as well as the applicable legal principles developed through a consistent line of judicial authorities which this Court is bound to follow and apply. 1 1. Claims arising from motor-vehicle accidents commonly involve injured parties seeking compensation under insurance policies maintained by the owners of the vehicles or tortfeasors. The present matter is no exception. What distinguishes this case, however, is that the insurer itself has initiated proceedings, seeking a declaration that the First Defendant’s personal-injury claim in the Sessions Court falls outside the scope of the relevant third-party insurance policy. 2. Accordingly, it falls to this Court to interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Road Transport Act 1987 to the factual circumstances before it. 1 The Overriding Issue 3. The resolution of this Originating Summons turns on a deceptively simple question: was the First Defendant a “passenger” within the meaning of the Road Transport Act 1987? While seemingly straightforward, the question requires careful analysis. 4. At its core, the issue concerns the proper construction of the statutory framework governing compulsory third-party insurance, particularly the scope of coverage under the Road Transport Act 1987, and whether, the exclusion provision and/or the further exception thereto applies to the present case. 1 Judicial review – Certiorari to quash the award of the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims – The Tribunal awarded the respondent liquidated damages for late delivery of vacant possession of his house – Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider that a sum was already paid to the respondent as liquidated damages pursuant to a settlement letter – Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider section 35 of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid - 19) Act 2020, which provided an extension of time of 167 days for the delivery of vacant possession. 1 Full Hearing - Judicial review – Applicant an Order of certiorari to quash the 1st Respondent’s decision in rejecting their appeal for further or full remissions of goods and services tax to a remaining balance amounting to a sum of RM4,127,710.46, a declaration that four Bills of Demand issued by the 2nd Respondent are invalid, ineffective, void and do not bind the Applicant as well as to declare that the related transaction that formed the subject matter of the Bills of Demand were all zero rated supplies and that the Applicant is not liable to pay goods and services tax (hereinafter referred to as “GST”) in respect of the same. 1 Issues: - Whether the sale of bunker oil is a zero-rated supply and thus not taxable under the GST Act 2014; and 1 - Whether the sale of ships is an export and non-taxable under the GST Act 2014 1 Held: - The Court finds that the sale of bunker oil to cruise ships are standard-rated supply and thus taxable under the GST Act 2014 based on the Royal Malaysian Customs’ Guide on Shipping Industry published on 22nd December 2015. 1 - The Court thus finds that the Bills of Demand in respect of the sale of the bunker oil to the cruise ships are valid and bind the Applicant. 1 - The Court however finds that the sale of two ships to Langkawi and Myanmar are zero-rated supply and thus not taxable in light of Paragraph 3 of the GST Act 2014 read together with Item 3 of First Schedule of the Goods and Services Tax (Zero-Rated Supply) Order 2014 and Section 155 of the GST Act 2014 1 - The Application is partly allowed only with respect to the sale of the ships with costs. 1 Originating Motion - Appeal against decision of local authority pursuant to s.145 of the Local Government Act 1976 (“LGA 1976”) – Whether Appellant has locus standi to file the appeal to the High Court under s.145 of the LGA 1976 – The question of locus standi is a threshold issue - Appellant is the Penang Turf Club suing through its public officer registered under the Societies Act 1966 – s.145 (1) of the LGA 1976 provides any person who having made an objection in the manner prescribed by section 142 or 144 is dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority thereon may appeal to the High Court - Whether the Appellant is legally maintainable to file the appeal under s.145 of the LGA 1976 under s. 9(c) of the Societies Act, 1966 notwithstanding objections under s.142 of the LGA 1976 was not made by the Appellant 1 Judicial review application against the statutory acquisition. Application filed out of time. Insufficiency of Order 53 Statement. 1 Application for leave to apply for judicial review under Order 53 Rule 3(7) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) - extension of time to apply for leave as there was a delay of more than eighteen (18) months from the date of the said decision - whether the applicant had good reason(s) for the delay - non-compliance of Order 53 rule 3(6) is fatal as the time frame for applying for judicial review under Order 53 is fundamental and goes to the jurisdiction of the court who hears it - it is trite that negligent or mistake by counsel cannot be a ground for granting an extension 1 Full Hearing - Judicial review – Applicants as directors seek to quash via certiorari the decision of the Respondents in imposing a travel ban due to tax assessed by the 1st Respondent to be paid by the company. 1 Issues: - Whether the 1st Respondent’s request to the 2nd Respondent to impose a travel ban is amenable to review? - Whether the 1st Respondent committed an error of law when they requested such travel ban? - Whether there was any reason to belief that the Applicants were about or likely to leave Malaysia permanently, or abscond without paying tax? - Whether Section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 ousts this Court’s review jurisdiction? 1 Held: - In light of the recent Federal Court decisions, Section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 contravenes the doctrine of separation of powers and therefore this Court may review decisions of the Executive. 1 - The 1st Respondent’s action requesting the travel ban is amenable to review. 1 - By virtue of Section 31 of the Sales Tax Act 2018, a request for travel ban must be based on a belief that the Applicants were about or likely to leave Malaysia permanently or abscond without paying tax. 1 - As there is no basis nor averments in this case that there was a belief of absconding or leaving without paying tax, and the sole reason was that there was tax owed, the Court finds that the imposition of the travel ban is tainted with irrationality, illegality and a breach of natural justice. 1 - The Application is therefore allowed and the action/decision of the 1st Respondent to request the imposition of travel ban on the Applicants is hereby quashed and an order of mandamus is issued against the 2nd Respondent to remove the travel ban. 1 Judicial review to quash the award of the Strata Management Tribunal (SMT) – The SMT allowed a claim by the 2nd respondent (a unit owner) against the applicant (a joint management body) for refund of deposit – And dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim for an order that the 2nd respondent restores her unit to its original condition – Whether the urgent repair work carried out by the 2nd respondent due a pipe burst amounts to renovation works – Whether the repair work has changed the exterior façade of the 2nd Respondent’s unit. 1 Judicial review – Challenge against building plan approval granted by MBPP – Whether the building plan must be signed by the owner of the land – Whether the renovation works have deviated from the approved building plan – Whether the building plan is a circumvention of a pending planning permission application. 1 1. This case illustrates how a single corporate transaction, seemingly routine in form, can trigger far-reaching questions concerning the reach of Malaysia’s taxing jurisdiction, the interpretation of a bilateral tax treaty (the Malaysia–Luxembourg Double Taxation Agreement), and the boundaries of public law supervision. What began as a disposal of shares in a real property company has evolved into a dispute that sits at the crossroads of domestic tax legislation and international obligations. 1 - Judicial Review – Order 53 Rules of Court – certiorari to quash Industrial Court Award; - Findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses – whether amenable to Judicial Review - Whether there were errors of law committed by the Learned Chairman in arriving at his decision that the dismissal of the Respondent was without just cause or excuse; - Court finds no errors of law and application is dismissed with costs. 1 - Application for Stay of Execution of directions by the Commissioner of Building to convene an EGM pending disposal of a judicial review application for an order of certiorari to quash a decision of the Strata Management Tribunal; 1 - Whether there were special circumstances warranting a stay and was there any basis for the contention that the COB are biased? 1 - Application for stay dismissed. 1 Judicial review – Certiorari to quash decision of the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) – The MMC found the doctor not guilty of any professional misconduct pursuant to section 30 of the Medical Act 1971 – The 1st applicant is the patient who was treated by the doctor – The 2nd applicant is the husband of the patient – Whether the applicants have the requisite locus standi to initiate the application for judicial review – The patient’s medical negligence suit against the doctor was settled amicably without any admission of liability – Consent judgment was recorded – Whether the applicants are estopped from raising issues of negligence in this judicial review application. 1 1. The Petitioner’s (P) petitions to wind-up the company: on two grounds— (1) that the Company’s directors have acted in the affairs of the Company in their own interests rather than in the interests of the members as a whole, or acted in any other manner which appears to be “unfair or unjust” to members; and (2) under paragraph (h): where the Court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the Company be wound-up. 1 2. The first ground has to do with the conduct of the directors. The questions to consider are—in the decisions made for the Company, have the directors acted in their own interests rather than in the members’ (shareholders’) interests? Or have they acted in any manner that “appears” to be “unfair and unjust” to the members? 1 3. The second ground has to do with the Ebrahimi-type of winding-up—that it is “just and equitable” to wind-up the Company. 1 1. Petitioner filed a winding-up petition under Sections 465(1)(f), and (h) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). 2. Respondent filed an application to struck out the Petition under Order 18 Rule 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court (Enclosure 5). 3. This Court has allowed Enclosure 5 and dismissed Petition. 1 1. The winding up Petition filed on the grounds that the Respondent is “unable to pay its debts” under section 465(1)(e) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA) and that “it is just and equitable” for R to be wound up under section 465(1)(h) of the CA. 1 2. The winding up Petition is not premised on a judgment debt. 1 3. Should this winding up Petition be allowed? 1 1. Petitioner filed a winding-up petition under Sections 464 and 465 (1)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of the Companies Act 2016. 2. Court finds that- (a) The Petitioner did not come with clean hands; (b) The Petitioner has not satisfied this Court that the grounds he complained of in the Petition justify that the Respondent Company be wound up; and (c) The Petitioner's complaints are premature, pending disposal of other suits filed in the High Court. 1 1. A company was wound up by Court Order. The Official Receiver (OR) was appointed the liquidator. 1 2. This proceeding is the OR's post-winding up application for a Court Order to remove the caveats that Respondent entered on the properties, so that the properties can be vested in the OR. 1 2. Should the caveats be removed so that the OR can deal with the properties in the liquidation process? 1 1. The Liquidator applies to be remunerated for the period that he performed his work as the Company’s liquidator, namely between the date of the winding up Order and the date that the winding up Order was set aside. 1 2. Should the Liquidator be remunerated? If yes, who should pay his remuneration and expenses? 1 There are 2 main issues that have been argued by the parties during the appeal stage, namely: 1 First Issue: “Whether the amendment to BN should be allowed?”; and Second issue: “Whether the amendment to BN should be allowed and Enclosure 2 should be automatically struck out?” 1 The primary concern is the Second Issue, which will subsequently impact the First Issue. Therefore, this Court will address the Second Issue (before the First Issue) in its decision, which is: “Whether the Court has power to extend the six-month period stipulated under Section 5(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act 2017 after it has expired?” 1 Consequently, this Court referred to Order 59 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012, which states: 1 “Order 59 – Costs Rule 8 – Special matters to be taken into account in exercising discretion The Court in exercising its discretion as to costs shall, to such extent, if any, as may be appropriate in the circumstances, take into account- (a)any offer of contribution or offer of settlement under Order 22B; (b)the conduct of all the parties, including conduct before and during the proceedings; (c)the conduct of the parties in relation to any attempt at resolving the cause or matter by mediation or any other means of dispute resolution; and (d)in particular, the extent to which the parties have followed any relevant pre-action protocol or practice direction for the time being issued by the Registrar. 1 Since the claim is dismissed, it is not appropriate for PW to be ordered to pay costs. Therefore, Items 25(b) and (c) in RH’s counter-petition (Appellant/Respondent) are dismissed and the costs of the proceedings of RM15,000.00 are ordered to be paid by the RH (Appellant/Respondent) to PW (Respondent/Petitioner) subject to allocators. 1 In Per: Tan Joo Yen (Supra), the Court holds the view that it does not fall under the phrase "where a marriage which is solemnised in Malaysia" for the purposes of the provisions of Section 107(3) of the LRA. 1 The Court further finds that the procedure for solemnising a marriage in Malaysia is clearly delineated by Parliament as set out in Sections 22(4), (5), and (6) of the LRA. 1 Moreover, the Court articulated the perspective that the marriage procedure in Malaysia has been instituted by Parliament in accordance with the requirements set forth in Sections 22(4), (5), and (6) of the Act. 1 The requested documents are related to both pleadings and are relevant to the claims. The application by the RW has merits as it fulfilled the requirements under O 24 of the ROC 2012. The documents referred to are stated in the affidavits and pleadings. The application for discovery of documents under O 24 r 10 of the ROC 2012 is applied to documents referred to in the affidavit and pleadings. If the application was made to support a witness statement, not to support an affidavit or RH’s pleadings, it can be said it amounts to a fishing expedition. 1 This Court is therefore satisfied that based on the facts of the case and also the pleadings of the Divorce Petition, the bank statements/accounts would avail the Court and the RW for a proper examination of the PH’s financial capacity, which is: “a material statement averred in the divorce petition in relation to the PH’s financial standing” 1 Crucial to note that the conduct of PW in filing the petition for nullity merely three months into the marriage, well before the expiration of the two-year period stipulated under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, clearly demonstrates that she did not afford RH a reasonable opportunity to consummate the marriage. Furthermore, had the parties remained married for two years, Section 106 of the LRA 1976 would have required reference to a conciliatory body in an effort to reconcile the parties. However, the early filing of nullity proceedings precluded any such attempt at reconciliation, as no such requirement exists in nullity proceedings. 1 Background of proceeding: 1 (a) Witnesses (b) Bundles (c) Section 114 (g) of The Evidence Act 1950 1 When a matter between two parties has been adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the parties and their privies are not permitted to litigate once more the res judicata, because the judgment becomes the truth between such parties, or in other words, the parties should accept it as the truth; res judicata pro veritate accipitur (please refer to Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189) 1 The discovery and inspection of documents is governed by Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). In particular Order 24 rule 12 of the ROC 2012 provides for the production of documents to the court. Order 24 rule 12 of the ROC 2012 reads: “At any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter the Court may, subject to rule 13(1), order any party to produce to the Court any document in his possession, custody or power relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter and the Court may deal wit the document when produced in such manner as it thinks fit. and O 24 r 13 RHC further provides: (1) No order for the production of any document for inspection or to the Court shall be made under any of the foregoing rules unless the Court is of the opinion that the order is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. (2) Where on an application under this Order for production of any document for inspection or to the Court privilege from such production is claimed or objection is made to such production on any other ground, the Court may inspect the document for the purpose of deciding whether the claim or objection is valid.” 1 - An ex-parte order granted ( Enclosure 1) is one that lacks a merit-based as it is issued without hearing from all parties involved, but rather only from JC and the Garnishee never had the opportunity to be heard before the ex- parte order was allowed; hence it had a basic right to have the order set aside. 1 Pemohon di dalam Notis Usul ini merayu terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini yang bertaikh pada 23.5.2025 уyang menolak permohonan Pemohon untuk satu perintah perlanjutan masa bagi memfailkan petisyen rayuan bagi kes No.PA-42S-2-09/2024. Mahkamah ini akur bahawa seksyen 310 KTJ memberikan kuasa budibicara kepada Mahkamah ini untuk membenarkan perlanjutan masa kepada pihak-pihak yang gagal mematuhi apaapa fomaliti atau kehendak-kehendak peruntukan di dalam KTJ. Pertimbangan utama di dalam permohonan di bawah peruntukkan ini adalah, bagi memastikan keadilan substansial dapat dilaksanakan. Sebelum perlanjutan masa boleh dibenarkan, Mahkamah ini harus berpuashati bahawa Pemohon telah menunjukkan di dalam affidavit sokongannya bahawa Pemohon mempunyai alasan dan merit yang kukuh di sudut undang-undang di dalam rayuannya. Ini kerana, jika sedari awal lagi rayuan Pemohon langsung tiada prospek untuk berjaya, maka, tiada apa-apа ketidakadilan yang boleh dikatakan menimpa Pemohon jika permohonannya di bawah seksyen 310 KTJ tidak dibenarkan.Rujukan kepada kes MASNELAN PAKPAHAN v. PP [1989] 2 CLJ (Rep) 112,kes SAID HASHIM MOHD BASRI v. PP [2009] 1 LNS 585, ROSLI HARUN v. PP [2022] 1 LNS 853, walaupun Pemohon telah membentangkan apa yang didakwanya sebagai alasan kukuh dan merit bagi di dalam affidavit sokongan yang difailkan dan juga telah melampirkan Cadangan Petisyen Rayuan yang akan difailkan, namun, setelah meneliti satu persatu 'alasan/merit' tersebut, Mahkamah ini berpendapat kesemuanya bukanlah alasan yang kukuh atau pun bermerit di sudut fakta dan undang undang. 1 kesalahan di bawah seksyen 353 Kanun Keseksaan. seksyen 307 (3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ), Mahkamah Majistret berkenaan telah membekalkan alasan penghakiman berserta nota keterangan bagi perbicaraan tersebut kepada pihak Pendakwa Raya. Seksyen 307 (4) KTJ, Pihak Pendakwa Raya hendaklah memfailkan petisyen rayuan di Mahkamah Majistret berkenaan dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh penerimaan alasan penghakiman dan nota keterangan tersebut. peruntukan 310 KTJ ini, iaitu ‘A judge may’, adalah jelas bahawa samada membenarkan atau pun menolak permohonan ini, adalah merupakan kuasa budibicara Mahkamah. Mahkamah hendaklah dipandu oleh frasa ‘in order that substantial justice may be done in the matter.” 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] - Elemen-elemen kesalahan – Sama ada versi pembelaan mengenai pemilikan beg silang yang dikatakan mengandungi barang kes dadah oleh SD2 adalah benar atau rekaan semata-mata - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya membangkitkan keraguan munasabah berhubung dengan elemen milikan dan pengetahuan - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya mematahkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta 234 atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Prinsip penghukuman 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] - Elemen-elemen kesalahan - Sama ada rantaian keterangan berkenaan perjalanan barang kes terpelihara dan dijaga dengan baik oleh pihak Pendakwaan– Sama ada wujud keraguan pada identiti dadah berbahaya yang dirampas - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya mematahkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta 234 atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya membangkitkan keraguan munasabah berhubung dengan elemen pemilikan dadah berbahaya. 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Elemen-elemen kesalahan – sama ada percanggahan keterangan saksi pendakwaan memudaratkan kes pendakwaan – sama ada keterangan pihak pendakwaan dapat mewujudkan suatu kesimpulan yang tidak dapat disangkal (irresistible conclusion) bahawa bencana tubuh atau kecederaan yang dialami Si Mati berpunca daripada perbuatan OKT-OKT.- Sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Elemen-elemen kesalahan – pembuktian melalui Keterangan Ikut Keadaan (Circumstantial Evidence) – Kepentingan motif dalam kes yang pembuktian bersandarkan semata-mata kepada Keterangan Ikut Keadaan (Circumstantial Evidence) - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kesahihan kes pendakwaan – Prinsip Penghukuman - Budi Bicara Mahkamah dalam mengenakan hukuman gantung sampai mati atau pemenjaraan berserta sebatan 1 Rayuan Tertuduh atas sabitan dan hukuman –Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 326 Kanun Keseksaan– Sama ada elemen-elemen pertuduhan dipenuhi - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan di akhir kes pembelaan - Sama ada hukuman-hukuman yang dijatuhi ke atas Perayu adalah munasabah, setimpal dan selaras dengan undang- undang 1 Permohonan Semakan Jenayah - sama ada pertuduhan terhadap Pemohon adalah cacat, tidak lengkap atau tidak berasas - sama ada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang menolak permohonan di bawah seksyen 173(g) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang atau prosedur - sama ada pertuduhan tersebut menjejaskan hak Pemohon kepada perbicaraan yang adil dan wajar menurut undang-undang 1 Permohonan Jenayah – Permohonan Jaminan bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Pemakaian seksyen 388 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – Pemakaian seksyen 41B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai kuasa budi bicara untuk membenarkan jaminan bagi seorang yang dituduh di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, khususnya apabila Pemohon mendakwa mengalami masalah kesihatan yang serius - Sama ada peruntukan khusus mengatasi peruntukan umum. 1 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pertuduhan – Dakwaan bahawa pertuduhan cacat – Keperluan di bawah ss.152, 153 dan 154 KTJ – Sama ada butir “cara kesalahan dilakukan” diperlukan – Perbezaan antara ‘elemen’ dan ‘butiran’ – Sama ada ketinggalan menyebabkan prejudis – Sama ada ketinggalan boleh dipulihkan di bawah ss.156 dan 422 KTJ 1 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Mahkamah Tinggi – Bidang kuasa sedia ada (inherent jurisdiction) – Permohonan untuk mengetepikan pertuduhan – Sama ada wujud keadaan luar biasa – Dakwaan mala fide, penindasan atau penyalahgunaan proses – Sama ada isu yang dibangkitkan adalah isu merit yang memerlukan perbicaraan – Sama ada pelepasan dan pembebasan awal akan memprejudiskan pihak pendakwaan – Perkara 145(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan 1 Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Pemilikan - Pengetahuan - Dadah dijumpai di dalam sebuah rumah – siapakah penghuni rumah – OKT1 cuba melarikan diri sebelum tangkapan dibuat – OKT2 ditangkap di satu lokasi yang jauh dari rumah tempat dadah ditemui - Sama ada rantaian keterangan adalah utuh - Sama ada kedua-dua OKT mempunyai keupayaan untuk berurusan dengan dadah dengan mengecualikan akses orang lain - Sama ada OKT mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan serta pengetahuan mengenai dadah – sama ada siasatan yang lengkap telah dijalankan – sama ada kedua-dua OKT mempunyai niat bersama - Sama ada anggapan pengedaran dadah di bawah s. 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai. 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] - Dadah dijumpai di dalam sebuah rumah – siapakah penghuni rumah – lokasi OKT1 ditangkap berbeza dengan lokasi rumah tempat dadah ditemui - Sama ada ketiga-tiga OKT mempunyai keupayaan untuk berurusan dengan dadah dengan mengecualikan akses orang lain - Sama ada ketiga-tiga OKT mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan serta pengetahuan mengenai dadah – sama ada siasatan yang lengkap telah dijalankan – sama ada ketiga-tiga OKT mempunyai niat bersama - Sama ada anggapan pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta 234 terpakai. 1 Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] - Elemen-elemen kesalahan - Prosiding mencabar kebolehpercayaan saksi pembelaan - Kesan percanggahan antara keterangan saksi pembelaan dalam rakaman percakapan dengan keterangan lisan di Mahkamah - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya membangkitkan keraguan munasabah berhubung dengan elemen pemilikan dan pengetahuan - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya mematahkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta 234 atas imbangan kebarangkalian – Prinsip penghukuman 1 Pertuduhan Asal di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan – OKT-OKT mengaku salah atas Pertuduhan Pilihan di bawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan – Prinsip-Prinsip Penghukuman – Sama ada provokasi yang dibangkitkan oleh Si Mati wajar dipertimbangkan sebagai faktor mitigasi hukuman – sama ada hukuman pemenjaraan yang panjang ke atas pesalah warganegara asing adalah selaras dengan kepentingan awam memandangkan hal ini akan melibatkan implikasi kewangan kepada Kerajaan 1 The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision affirming SCIT’s dismissal of his appeal on additional tax assessments for YA 2011 and 2012. 1 Issue 1: Taxability of Allowances – The appellant claimed his allowances were tax-exempt under the Income Tax (Exemption) Order 2009 – However, he held 30% of the company’s shares—the largest among nine shareholders – The court agreed with the SCIT that he had "control" under Section 139 ITA 1967, disqualifying him from the exemption – Appeal on this ground was dismissed. 1 Issue 2: Penalty Under Section 113(2) ITA 1967 – The appellant also contested a 45% penalty, arguing there was no intent to mislead and the issue involved legal interpretation – The court found his conduct was bona fide and the penalty excessive – The DG had discretion to reduce the penalty under Section 124(3), even without an admission of guilt – Penalty was set aside. 1 Conclusion – Appeal on tax liability dismissed – Penalty under Section 113(2) ITA 1967 set aside. 1 Arbitration Award – Setting aside – Appeal against the decision of the High Court setting aside an International Arbitral Award pursuant to Section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Whether valid arbitration agreement existed - Whether the arbitral tribunal rightfully exercise its power to investigate and decide its own jurisdiction relating to the Respondents’ jurisdictional challenge under the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz – Section 18(7) Arbitration Act 2005 1 Equity does not permit a party to benefit from its own breach. Specific performance, being equitable, was unavailable to the Purchaser who acquiesced to the Developer's delay in delivering vacant possession. 1 Criminal appeal judgment, Court of Appeal Malaysia, Putrajaya- migrant smuggling offence under Section 26A ATIPSOM 2007-accomplice testimony-alibi defence; conviction affirmed; six-year imprisonment; bail granted. 1 Appeal against conviction and sentence – Section 26J of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2009 (“ATIPSOM”) – smuggling of migrants – Conveyance of smuggled migrants – Whether the six (6) Indonesians are “smuggled migrants” – Section 2 of the ATIPSOM – Whether the Appellant was misled by the charge preferred against him – Whether the charge against the Appellant was defective by the fact that the word “involved” was stated in the charge instead of the word “engages” as per section 26J of ATIPSOM. 1 Berdasarkan keseluruhan fakta kes, Rekod-Rekod Rayuan dan Alasan Penghakiman HMS, Mahkamah ini berpuas hati dan mendapati bahawa Responden telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya atas imbangan kebarangkalian terhadap Perayu-Perayu dan tiada appealable error dalam dapatan dan keputusan HMS tersebut yang memerlukan campur tangan Mahkamah ini. Oleh itu, berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah ini telah menolak rayuan Perayu-Perayu tersebut dan mengekalkan keseluruhan keputusan HMS tersebut dengan kos ditanggung oleh pihak masing-masing. 1 "Rayuan atas keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen - sama ada surat Perayu mewujudkan amanah konstruktif Perayu kepada Responden - sama ada amanah kontruktif adalah tertakluk kepada surat kelulusan oleh pihak ketiga" 1 Seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Seksyen 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 - beban dan onus pembuktian dalam kes sivil - prinsip bahawa plaintif mesti membuktikan kes atas imbangan kebarangkalian - burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts - kegagalan pembuktian membawa kepada penolakan tuntutan - pemakaian prinsip Torrens - kesahan pembatalan amanah - kesan kaveat persendirian di bawah seksyen 322(4) Kanun Tanah Negara - hak pemilik berdaftar mutlak untuk mendapatkan milikan kosong - seksyen 322 Kanun Tanah Negara - pemasukan instrument pembatalan amanah diterima sebelum kaveat persendirian berkuatkuasa - hibah kasih sayang - Pemegang Amanah sah dan teratur dari segi undang-undang; 1 Plaintif-Plaintif telah gagal mengemukakan mana-mana wakil pihak berkuasa tersebut sebagai saksi pihak Plaintif-Plaintif bagi membuktikan dakwaan Plaintif-Plaintif bahawa nama baik Plaintif Kedua telah tercemar dan bahawa Plaintif Pertama telah rasa tertekan akibat daripada pernyataan-pernyataan Defendan tersebut, maka adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif telah cuba untuk menahan, menyekat dan menyembunyikan suatu fakta penting dan material daripada dikemukakan dalam perbicaraan kes ini, yang mana jika dikemukakan fakta tersebut, tidak akan memberi manfaat dan memihak kepada pihak Plaintif-Plaintif. Sebagai kesimpulan, berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah ini telah menolak keseluruhan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan dengan kos sebanyak RM5,000.00 tertakluk kepada fi alokatur. 1 "Seksyen 465 dan 466 Akta Syarikat 2016 - permohonan injunksi fortuna - sama ada petisyen yang dicadangkan tidak mempunyai peluang untuk berjaya - sama ada injunksi boleh menyebabkan kerosakan kepada syarikat" 1 Preliminary Objection (PO) by liquidator is dismissed. Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs. Costs allowed RM10,000.00 each to be borne by Liquidator personally. The sum of RM215,731.20 retained by the Liquidator is to be paid back to the company within 14 days. 1 Berdasarkan alasan-alasan dan nas-nas undang-undang yang dinyatakan di atas, memandangkan pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Responden bagi Pertuduhan tersebut dan tiada apa-apa appealable error dan tersalah arah dari segi fakta dan undang-undang dalam keputusan Majistret tersebut, maka Mahkamah ini telah menolak rayuan Perayu terhadap Responden dan mengekalkan keputusan Majistret tersebut yang telah melepas dan membebaskan Responden daripada Pertuduhan tersebut. 1 "Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 - rayuan ke atas sabitan dan hukuman - sama ada HMS telah menilai kredebiliti mangsa - sama ada wujud percanggahan dalam keterangan mangsa" 1 “Rayuan ke atas sabitan dan hukuman – seksyen 376(2)(e) Kanun Keseksaan – sama ada keterangan mangsa adalah kukuh – sama ada ketidakwujudan DNA menjejaskan kes pendakwaan – sama ada kehadiran mangsa di tempat klejadian telah dibuktikan – sama ada hukuman adalah setimpal” 1 Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa memandangkan kesemua Pemohon tersebut telahpun disabitkan dengan kesalahan rogol berkumpulan di bawah seksyen 375B Kanun Keseksaan, yang mana merupakan suatu kesalahan yang serius, maka adalah tidak wajar untuk Mahkamah ini membenarkan penangguhan atau penggantungan pelaksanaan hukuman penjara tersebut ke atas Pemohon-Pemohon. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini telah menolak permohonan Notis Usul Pemohon-Pemohon tersebut. 1 "Seksyen 12/39A(2) Akta 234 - Pertuduhan Pilihan - OKT mengaku salah - sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah setimpal" 1 Mahkamah ini telah mengenakan hukuman 8 tahun penjara dari tarikh tangkap ke atas Tertuduh bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 26A ATIPSOM tersebut. 1 Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan permohonan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya supaya kes jenayah No.: RA-45SOM-3-04/2022 dibicarakan bersama dengan kes-kes jenayah No.: RA-45SOM-16-09/2023, No.: RA-45SOM-17-09/2023, No.: RA-45SOM-18-09/2023 dan No.: RA-45SOM-19-09/2023 1 Appeal against decision of High Court - Judicial review - Appellant appointed as Penasihat Teknikal and subsequently as President of Majlis Perbandaran Tawau (MPT)–Appointment reduced/terminated within three months–Letter issued by Ministry of Local Government and Housing referring to SPANS’ decision – Whether decision attributable to Minister or SPANS–Whether application misconceived–Whether appellant entitled to judicial review remedies-Whether reduction of fixed term amounted to dismissal–Termination of appointment –Section 8 of Tawau Municipal Council Instrument 1983 – Whether Minister had power to terminate – Whether respondents acted ultra vires – Whether SPANS as appointing authority lawfully exercised termination power – Constitution of the State of Sabah, Art. 37(1)-public service – Article 135(2) Federal Constitution – Right to be heard – Whether applicable to contractual termination under clause 9 of Agreement – Whether failure to afford hearing before termination unlawful 1 Background – Appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s Originating Summons seeking compensation for the acquisition of part of its land in Kota Kinabalu – Acquisition later revoked under Section 10A LAO 1950 – Appellant challenged the constitutionality of Section 10A for contravening Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution. 1 Ownership and procedure – Although a second gazette was published, there was no evidence the statutory procedures under Section 3(3) LAO 1950 (e.g. registration and endorsement) were completed – Hence, the acquisition was incomplete in law — the High Court’s phrase “merely on paper” was accurate. 1 Compensation Issue – Appellant claimed entitlement to compensation under Section 6(1) LAO 1950, arguing that acquisition was complete after the second gazette – Appellant filed Originating Summons as Section 33 LAO 1950 requires claims within 12 months – Held, revocation under Section 10A was valid, no basis for compensation – Compensation only arises if the acquisition had not been revoked. 1 Constitutionality of Section 10A – Court disagreed with Eastern Euphoria, which found Section 10A unconstitutional - Held that Section 10A deals with revocation, not acquisition; thus, it does not violate Article 13(2) – Upon revocation, ownership reverts to the landowner — compensation does not arise. 1 Available Remedy – Under Section 10A(3) LAO 1950, the appellant may claim damages for actual loss or injury suffered before revocation – Legislative intent is to allow Government to revoke acquisitions no longer viable while ensuring fairness by returning the land to the owner. 1 Conclusion – revocation valid and constitutional – no entitlement to compensation, only possible damages – Appeal dismissed with costs of RM15,000.00 subject to allocator fee. 1 Section 20 of the Industrial Relation Act 1967 - representations on dismissals - the role of the court in judicial review - exercise a supervisory not appellate jurisdiction - the applicable test in constructive dismissal cases – issue: whether the appellant was constructively dismissed? – Ground 1: misapplication of constructive dismissal “contract test" - collective effect of actions - directive to go on leave - Regulation 72(4) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 2016 - demand for return of company property - future employment - failure to respond to the appellant's clarification letter – Ground 2: Ground 2: Wednesbury Unreasonableness - Ground 3: findings of fact - Ground 4: Delay in resignation - Ground 5: Limits on transfer rights - conduct is tantamount to constructive dismissal - conduct is unreasonable - payment of back wages and compensation to be assessed - case to be remitted to the Industrial Court for assessment 1 Appellate courts may intervene in damages assessment appeals if the trial judge's findings are plainly wrong due to a lack of judicial appreciation of evidence, including failure to consider relevant facts or relying on unsupported assumptions. Damages must be proven with clear, precise evidence; reliance solely on expert opinion without factual support is insufficient. Where claims such as variations or loss of profit are not adequately proven, only nominal damages are appropriate. Courts may accept interim valuations like IPCs in the absence of joint measurement, but they must use the most accurate and updated version available. 1 Criminal Law – Dangerous Drugs – Appeal against conviction and sentence - Trafficking in methamphetamine – Possession of luggage containing 3404.2g methamphetamine – Accused arrested at airport – Whether prosecution proved knowledge and possession – Whether statutory presumption of trafficking pursuant to section 37(da)(xvi) of DDA invoked – Whether defence of innocent carrier raised reasonable doubt – Whether nodding gesture admissible as implied admission – Whether wilful blindness applicable – Whether failure to tender CCTV footage fatal – issue on incompetency of counsel- no specific prejudice or flagrant deficiency was shown- Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 section 39B(1)(a), section 39B(2), section 37(da)(xvi), section 37B(1)(b) – Evidence Act 1950 section 114(g) – Criminal Procedure Code section 182A 1 section 39B(1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under section 39B(2) of the same Act - the presumption under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - the findings of facts rest upon the substratum of oral evidence - the credibility of which is for the trial judge to decide - failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities - the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – the conviction is safe - Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 (Act 846) - the Court may consider the mitigating and aggravating factors in the exercise of its discretion - the element of public interest - the amount of drugs involved - the mitigation by the counsel on behalf of the appellant - sentence of life imprisonment with effect from the date of arrest and twelve (12) strokes of whipping 1 Appeal against conviction and sentence – Section 302 of the Penal Code – Whether the learned Judicial Commissioner was correct in fact and law in finding that it was the Appellant who inflicted the injuries to the deceased’s head and face and thereby caused the death of the deceased – Whether the absence of bloodstains or DNA evidence on the Appellant’s clothing and footwear created a reasonable doubt - Whether the Appellant’s voluntary intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intention or knowledge. 1 Drug trafficking – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Section 37(da)(xvi) – Statutory presumption of trafficking – Rebuttable presumption – Possession of 2,774.3g methamphetamine – Custody, control, knowledge – Evidence sufficient to trigger presumption. 1 Defence – Innocent carrier – Alleged third party “Teh” – Information incomplete, insufficient, no independent evidence – Trial judge correctly evaluated defence and inferred wilful blindness. 1 Wilful blindness – Appellant aware of suspicious circumstances – High remuneration of RM5,000 for delivery – Opportunity to inspect baggage – Deliberate failure to inquire – Court correctly inferred knowledge. 1 Overt act of trafficking – Not required in all cases – Possession with knowledge sufficient under s.2 DDA – Evidence of carrying and concealment adequate – Trial judge did not err. 1 Presumption of trafficking – Trial judge specified presumption triggered by possession exceeding threshold – Defence required to rebut on balance of probabilities – No error in application. 1 Accused representation – Appellant represented by counsel – No duty on trial court to explain legal effect of presumption or standard of proof – Section 257 CPC inapplicable. 1 Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Life imprisonment – No whipping due to age of appellant (50 years) 1 Criminal law - Both the Appellants were charged with trafficking 1,368.8 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code - at the end of the case for the defence, the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities and to raise a reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case and were convicted of the said offence and sentenced to life imprisonment, which is 30 years imprisonment, and also ordered to undergo 15 strokes of the whip. 1 Appeal against conviction and sentence – Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether the Appellant was in possession of the impugned drugs and had knowingly trafficked in the said drugs – Whether there was a failure to conduct proper investigations and to call material witnesses – Whether the learned Judge erred in not considering the alleged common intention between Samuk, PW5, and Elyana in relation to the trafficking offence. 1 Section 33 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952- did attempt to traffic in a dangerous drug- accused must have performed sufficient acts which manifest both the required intent and taken substantial steps towards the commission of the offence- act of the Appellant in attempting to collect the parcel would clearly fall under the various acts of “trafficking”- The Appellant also brought with him a printed airway bill (P20) which he handed over to PW7 and said that he was there to receive and collect the said parcel on someone else’s behalf- conduct of leaving in that manner, after having already handed over P20 to PW7- that P20 bore the same tracking number as the parcel - Appellant had taken all necessary steps to procure the same, until he abruptly left the premises after answering a phone call; 1 In this appeal, the appellant, Julasiri bin Akilmara, had initially been convicted alongside a co-accused, Aspal, for trafficking 137.03 grams of methamphetamine under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment and caning. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s finding that the appellant was in possession of the drugs, it found a significant procedural error regarding the trafficking charge. Specifically, the High Court failed to inform the appellant whether he was required to defend himself against actual trafficking under Section 2 or presumed trafficking under Section 37(da), each of which carries different burdens of proof. 1 Relying on binding precedents such as Bong Sing Seng v PP, the Court held that this omission amounted to a miscarriage of justice because an accused must know the exact nature of the case he needs to answer. As a result, the trafficking conviction was deemed unsafe. Nevertheless, because possession was proven, the Court substituted the trafficking conviction with a conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA, punishable under Section 39A(2). The appellant was resentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and exempted from whipping due to his age. 1 Criminal law - The Appellant was charged with trafficking 102.31grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - at the end of the case for the defence, the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities and to raise a reasonable doubt to the prosecutions case and was convicted of the said offence and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping. 1 Criminal law — Dangerous drugs — Trafficking — Possession and knowledge — Accused alone in vehicle — Drugs in gear panel — Voluntary handover after statutory caution — Section 39B(1)(a), (2) and s 37(da)(xvi) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether elements proved beyond reasonable doubt — Whether statutory presumption rebutted. 1 Criminal law — Defence of frame-up — Alleged planting of drugs — Tip-off by informer — Whether plausible. 1 Evidence — Police evidence — Acceptance of arresting officer’s testimony — Failure to challenge in cross-examination — Effect — Whether evidence inherently improbable — Section 134 Evidence Act 1950. Evidence — Corroboration — Whether required — Uncorroborated police evidence — Search list and police report — Sections 157 and 73A(7) Evidence Act 1950 — Meaning of corroboration — Circumstantial corroboration — Accused alone and proximity to drugs. 1 Criminal trial — Prosecution’s discretion — Failure to call vehicle owner — Whether material witness — Adverse inference — Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950. 1 Section 39B DDA trafficking charge - Whether High Court erred in dismissing defence as afterthought - Whether High Court, nonetheless considered the defence - Whether High Court should have invoked adverse inference for non-production of handphone and fingerprint report 1 Drug trafficking case under s 39B - Whether shoddy investigation because “real trafficker” not investigated - Whether knowledge of drugs proved - Whether too much emphasis on reaction of appellant upon arrest - Whether any gap in case for prosecution 1 Criminal Law — Dangerous Drugs — Trafficking — Possession — Chain of custody — Presumption — Appellate interference 1 The appellant appealed against his conviction for trafficking in cannabis, alleging compromised exhibits, absence of a statutory caution, failure to prove possession, improper invocation of the presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) DDA 1952, and defective investigations. 1 Held, dismissing the appeal – the trial judge correctly found that the chain of custody was intact and the caution under s 37B(1) DDA 1952 was duly administered – Non-compliance with s 51A CPC did not render the cautioned statement inadmissible – possession was established as the drugs were found in the appellant’s bedroom, which he exclusively occupied with his wife – the statutory presumption of trafficking arose and was not rebutted – alleged investigative deficiencies were not material – the trial judge’s findings were not plainly wrong and warranted no appellate interference. 1 Held, appeal dismissed – conviction and sentence affirmed. 1 Section 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code [Act 574] read together with section 511 - offence of attempted rape – Issue: Whether the appellant was the person who sexually assaulted the victim - Physical contact between the appellant and the victim's body - Physical contact between the appellant and the victim's brassiere - Physical contact between the appellant and the victim's room window grill - Failure to consider the absence of victim blood on the appellant’s clothing - DNA evidence - failure to consider such material evidence is a miscarriage of justice - serious misdirection that warrants the court to intervene, interfere and reverse the concurrent finding of fact on the identification issue - forensic evidence plays an important role in determining the identity of the culprit - Alibi Defence - alibi evidence need not be corroborated - section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 - the evidence of alibi need only raise a reasonable doubt - Identification Parade - identification parade was not in accordance with Perintah Tetap Ketua Polis Negara - court identification was defective, irregular and improperly held – Issue: Whether information leading to discovery (section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950) is inadmissible - improper admission of exhibit - no evidence of the discovery of the items mentioned in the oral and written statements - conviction is unsafe 1 Family law – Divorce – Joint petition - Decree nisi obtained in June 2000 – Neither petitioners made the decree nisi absolute - Petitioner-husband made it absolute only in January 2025 – Petitioner-Husband now applied to back date decree absolute to August 2000 - Whether Court empowered to backdate decree absolute – Legal implications of not making a decree nisi absolute – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act 1976 sections 61, 62, 69, 75 1 Tort of trespass to goods; trespass to goods, conversion and detinue distinguished; damages; economic loss, whether foreseeable; damages, election to claim for costs and expenses or loss of profits 1 Rayuan jenayah – Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Tangkapan berasaskan maklumat awam – Prosiding mencabar kebolehpercayaan saksi - Seksyen 37B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Rayuan terhadap sabitan adalah ditolak dan rayuan terhadap hukuman adalah dibenarkan 1 Rayuan jenayah – Seksyen 302 dan 307 Kanun Keseksaan – Pengakuan salah – Tidak memahami sifat dan akibat pengakuan yang dibuat dan pengakuan salah adalah tidak bersyarat – Seksyen 305 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – Rayuan tidak bermerit – Rayuan ditolak 1 Pelucuthakan harta-beban pembuktian -keterangan pegawai penyiasat-kepuasan Pendakwa Raya-pertimbangan mahkamah 1 Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39C(1)(b) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama Seksyen 38B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 282(d) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Seksyen 292(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Commencement of sentence of imprisonment on prisoner already undergoing imprisonment - Seksyen 376(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Perkara 145(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan 1 Tort – Negligence – Road traffic accident – Damages – Appeal against quantum – Personal injuries – Fractured clavicle with severe complications – Multiple surgical interventions – Wound dehiscence – Permanent functional impairment – Scarring – Future medical expenses – Shoulder brace – Neuropathic pain medication – Contributory negligence – Whether awards manifestly excessive – Whether awards supported by medical evidence – Principles of appellate intervention – Comparable authorities – Compendium as guideline – Application of legal principles to assessment of general and special damages – Cross-appeal for enhancement of damages and additional claim for spinal injury – Burden of proving causation – Whether claim for spinal injury established on balance of probabilities – Appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal allowed in part. 1 Courts – Appellate jurisdiction – High Court hearing appeal from Sessions Court – Scope of appellate interference with assessment of damages – When appellate court may interfere with trial judge’s award – Erroneous estimate of damages – Misapprehension of facts – Wrong principle of law – Role of Compendium of Awards for Personal Injuries – Guideline not statutory code – Consideration of inflation and economic changes – Observation of injured party in court as part of factual finding. 1 Damages – General damages – Pain and suffering – Loss of amenities – Fractures – Malunion – Abrasions – Scars and disfigurement – Young claimant – Permanent disability – Special damages – Future medical expenses – Shoulder brace – Medication (Pregabalin) – Laser therapy and injections – Necessity and reasonableness of claim – Proof of actual need and usage – Speculative claims – Distinction between medical necessity and cosmetic enhancement – Double compensation – Contributory negligence – Apportionment of liability (90%/10%) – Recalculation of damages after appeal. 1 Evidence – Medical evidence – Conflicting expert opinions – Orthopaedic surgeons – Plastic surgery expert – Hospital records – Most recent medical report – Weight of independent evidence – Causation – Spinal injury claim – Absence of contemporaneous evidence – MRI findings two years post-accident – Degenerative changes versus traumatic injury – Burden of proof – Balance of probabilities – Court’s preference for objective evidence over sympathy. 1 Tort – Negligence – Road traffic accident – Motorcycle colliding with rear left side of car – Whether trial court erred in fixing 100% liability on motorcyclist – Failure of driver to signal before changing lane – Sudden lateral movement – Physical damage pattern corroborating plaintiff’s version – Investigating officer’s independent evidence – Sessions Court’s misdirection – Contributory negligence – Apportionment of liability – Whether 70:30 apportionment justified. 1 Evidence – Physical evidence – Photographs and damage pattern – Consistency with plaintiff’s account – Contradiction of defendant’s police report – Weight to be accorded to independent investigating officer’s testimony – Failure of trial court to evaluate material evidence – Appellate intervention. 1 Negligence – Standard of care – Failure to give advance signal before changing lane – Breach of basic road safety obligation – Dominant cause of collision – “Last opportunity” principle – Motorcyclist’s duty of heightened vigilance when riding on road shoulder – Contributory negligence. 1 Damages – Personal injuries – Assessment – Facial fractures – Multiple distinct fractures – Whether global award permissible – Separate assessment required – Error of principle – Mechanical deduction for overlapping injuries – Requirement of functional analysis – Failure to consider neurosurgical injury – Proper assessment of general damages – Appellate reassessment. 1 Damages – Overlapping injuries – Whether blanket percentage deduction permissible – Distinct anatomical injuries producing separate pain and disability – Improper mechanical approach – Principles governing overlapping injuries. 1 Practice and Procedure – Appeal – Interference with findings of fact – Misdirection – Error of principle – Failure to evaluate material evidence – When appellate court entitled to intervene. 1 Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Application under O 14 Rules of Court 2012 — Evidential threshold — Whether defendant raised bona fide triable issue — Bare denials and speculative allegations — Absence of documentary proof — When summary judgment appropriate 1 Intellectual Property — Trade marks — Infringement — Passing off — Counterfeit pharmaceutical products — Registered proprietor — Defendant licensed pharmacist — Duty to ensure authenticity of goods — Absence of statutory defence under Trade Marks Act 2019 1 Evidence — Affidavit evidence — Quality of defence — Assessment of triable issues — Distinction between credibility and evidential sufficiency — Court entitled to reject inherently improbable explanations 1 Damages — Inquiry as to damages — Aggravated and exemplary damages — Whether appropriate to defer entitlement — Costs to be determined at assessment 1 Civil Procedure – Default judgment – Application to set aside – Whether default judgment was regularly obtained – Whether application filed out of time – Order 42 rule 13 Rules of Court 2012 – Cogent reasons for delay – Five-year delay – No explanation offered – Whether defendants demonstrated a defence on the merits with a real prospect of success – Failure to file any proposed defence – Application dismissed – Requirements to set aside – Threshold for setting aside regular judgment – Defence must have a real prospect of success and carry degree of conviction – Service – Contractual deeming provision – Service by registered post deemed received on fifth day – Validity of contractual service clause. 1 Guarantee and Indemnity – Liability of guarantor – As principal debtor – Effect of guarantee and indemnity clause – Liability is independent and primary – Not extinguished by winding up of principal debtor – Post-winding-up interest – Section 8(2A) Insolvency Act 1967 – Freezing of interest against wound-up company does not apply to guarantor’s separate contractual obligation – Guarantor liable for interest under guarantee – Appropriation of auction proceeds – Proceeds from sale of charged asset credited to principal debtor’s account – Surplus paid to liquidator – Guarantor not entitled to direct reduction of liability from liquidation surplus – Right of guarantor lies in indemnity or proving in liquidation – Conclusive evidence clause – Statement of indebtedness as final and conclusive evidence of debt in absence of manifest error – Clause binding and enforceable. 1 Civil Procedure – Striking out – Abuse of process – Doctrine of res judicata – Cause of action estoppel – Multiple proceedings on same subject matter – Whether claim “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious” – Whether “otherwise an abuse of the process of the court” – Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b), (d). 1 Civil Procedure – Striking out – Use of affidavit evidence – Application relying on multiple grounds – Distinction between O. 18 r. 19(1)(a) and (b), (c), (d) – Whether court entitled to consider affidavit evidence where abuse of process alleged – Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(2). 1 Civil Procedure – Vexatious litigant – Declaration sought – Threshold for declaration – Meaning of “habitually and persistently” – Whether conduct, though vexatious, meets statutory threshold – Single protracted dispute versus pattern of unrelated litigation – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 25(2), Schedule item 17. 1 Courts – Judgment and orders – Effect of sealed order – Oral remarks of judge during hearing – Whether unofficial transcript can override or circumvent final sealed order – Finality of judgments. 1 Words and Phrases – “Habitually and persistently” – “Vexatious legal proceedings” – “Abuse of process”. 1 Undang-undang Sivil- Aturan 29 Kaedah 1 Kaedah Kaedah Mahkamah 2012- sama ada Plaintif berjaya memenuhi 3 ujian dalam menyokong permohonan injuksi - dalam mendengar permohonan injuksi, Mahkamah tidak perlu mendengar merit kes 1 Prosedur Sivil- Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1) (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012-sama ada tindakan yang di failkan oleh Plaintif adalah mengaibkan, remeh, menyusahkan dan merupakan penyalahguanaan proses mahkamah- Plaintif gagal gunapakai remedi dibawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah apabila menerima pampasan yang diberikan dan setelah setuju dengan pampasan, Plaintif kemudiannya memfailkan tindakan ini menuntut ganti rugi 1 Family law — Custody — Interim custody, care and control — Child of tender years — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 s 88(3) — Rebuttable presumption in favour of mother for child below seven — Whether presumption rebutted — Whether father’s allegations of mother’s lifestyle sufficient — Welfare of child paramount — Access and maintenance — Removal of child from jurisdiction — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 88(3) & 93 — Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, r.76 — Rules of Court 2012, O.1A, O.7 & O.92 r.4 1 Undang-undang Jenayah — Rayuan — Terhadap hukuman — Tertuduh mengaku salah — Rayuan terhad kepada berat hukuman — Cubaan menarik balik pengakuan di peringkat rayuan — Seksyen 305 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah — Pengakuan sah dan sukarela — Tiada asas untuk semakan semula 1 Undang-undang Jenayah — Kesalahan — Percubaan rompakan menyebabkan kecederaan — Penggunaan senjata tajam — Seksyen 394 Kanun Keseksaan — Faktor pemberatan — Mangsa wanita — Kejadian di hadapan kanak-kanak 1 Hukuman — Prinsip — Kepentingan awam dan pencegahan — Kesalahan keganasan — Trend penghukuman — 7 tahun penjara dan 2 sebatan — Tidak nyata berlebihan — Rayuan ditolak 1 Prosedur Jenayah – Habeas Corpus – Tangkapan di bawah seksyen 3(1) Akta 283 – Pegawai Pemulihan – Syak munasabah – Perakuan penagihan dadah oleh pegawai perubatan kerajaan – Keperluan substantif takrifan “penagih dadah” – Prosedur seksyen 6(1) Akta 283 – Kebolehterimaan laporan patologi di bawah seksyen 399 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah – Skop semakan kehakiman dalam permohonan habeas corpus – beban pembuktian – Pemohon diwakili peguam semasa prerintah tahanan Mahkamah Majistret diberikan – Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan dan Pemulihan) 1983 (Akta 283), ss.2, 3(1), 6(1) – Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s.399 – Akta Keterangan 1950, ss. 56, 57(1)(h), & 114(e). 1 Judicial review; claim for unlawful dismissal; statutory corporation; whether the ultimate decision to dismiss the employee was correct, regardless of any complaint of procedural impropriety. 1 Election Commission - Article 119(1) of the Federal Constitution - Standard Operating Procedure issued pursuant to reg. 17(1) of the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (National Recovery Plan) (Transition Phase to Endemic) Regulations 2022 - Elections Act 1958 - O 53 r 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 - Article 160(2) FC 1 Judicial review, exceptional circumstances, threshold inquiry, abuse of process, Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 section 18, paragraphs 15(2), 16, and 34A(6) of Schedule 2, real property company. 1 Special Commissioner of Income Tax - notice of additional assessment- Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967- Form JA (YA/2010/PYB) and Form JA (YA/2010/CYB) – Notices of Additional Assessment - decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax – year of assessment – preciding year basis 1 Investigation Committee (IIC) Legitimacy - DAC Hearing Was Not Fair - Right to Cross-Examine or Respond - No Valid Waiver - Natural Justice Violated 1 Facts The Appellant, Professor Dato’ Dr. Mohd Fauzi Bin Ramlan, a former Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605). He was found guilty of insubordination by UPM’s Disciplinary Committee (DC) and penalised by a reduction in rank from VK6 to VK7. His appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Committee (DAC) was dismissed. The Appellant subsequently sought judicial review of the DAC’s decision, which was dismissed by the High Court. The present appeal challenges that dismissal. 1 Issues [1]Whether the disciplinary process, particularly before the DAC, complied with the rules of natural justice. 1 [2]Whether the DAC’s failure to allow the Appellant to be present during witness examination constituted a procedural impropriety. 1 [3]Whether defects in earlier stages (IIC, IC, DC) were “cured” by the DAC’s appellate process. 1 Held Appeal Allowed – The DAC’s decision was vitiated by procedural impropriety and set aside. 1st Respondent (UPM) to pay costs to the Appellant in the sum of RM25,000.00 (subject to allocatur) as costs here and below. We make no order as to costs against the 2nd Respondent (DAC) and the 3rd Respondent. 1 judicial review - whether the Respondents’ failure to disclose the detailed methodology and figures underpinning the dumping margin prior to the Final Determination was lawful, and whether the use of erroneous figures in the margin calculation renders the determination invalid. - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994 ("CADDR 1994") - principles of procedural fairness and natural Justice - Duty to Disclose Detailed Dumping Margin Calculation Sheet – Procedural Impropriety 1 The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that the Proposed Decision by Malaysian Competition Commission (MyCC) under Section 36 of the Competition Commission Act 2010 is subject to judicial review. Sections 35 to 40 of the Act do not provide a statutory appeal mechanism for a proposed decision under Section 36. MyCC’s investigation was procedurally improper due to a lack of proper notification and distinction between different complaints. Consequently, the judicial review was not premature, and the High Court’s decision to quash the proposed decision was upheld. 1 industrial court - Salary scale - Award on Article 31.1.1 - annual increment and salary adjustment - Minimum Wages Order (MWO)-Comparable Collective Agreement-Bonus - Award on Article 32 Article 31: Salary Scales, Salary Adjustment and Annual Increment Article 31.1.1: Salary Structure - Article 31.3.1: Salary Adjustment -Article 31.2.1: Annual Increment- Article 32: Performance Incentives and Bonus-Article 34.5: Shift Allowance-Article 15: Hours of Work- Article 16: Overtime-Article 18: Rest Days -Article 20: Annual Leave 1 judicial review - exercise a supervisory not appellate jurisdiction - Defect Liability Period - failure to observe the Non-Rectification Clause - the developer failed to repair and rectify - third-party expert testimony - finding on the usage of the symbol - Tribunal had not committed any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety that warrants its decision be quashed 1 The case concerns the deductibility of interest expenditure for tax purposes. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Sunway REIT Holdings Sdn Bhd, holding that the return of capital received from Sunway REIT is taxable income. It also held that section 33(1) of the ITA does not allow for apportionment of interest expenditure, making Public Ruling No. 2/2011 ultra vires. Consequently, the court allowed the full deduction of RM18,188,537.62 in interest expenditure against the taxable income for the relevant year. The High Court’s decision was set aside, with costs awarded to the appellant. 1 Revenue Law - Assessment of stamp duty -Appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 6 November 2023 in dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the assessment of stamp duty(ad valorem duty) raised by the Respondent - Whether the Novation Agreement is chargeable under subsection 16(1) read together with item 32(a) of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949 - Whether the Novation Agreement extinguished the original obligations(a novation) or transferred a debt(an assignment). 1 Change of name- Regulation 14 of the National Registration Regulations 1990- application to change his current name to his original name was dismissed by the 1st Respondent- change in name from the original name to the new assumed name but does not envisage a change in name back to the original name - sub-regulation 14(2) that an applicant certify the fact that he has “absolutely renounced” and “abandoned” the use of his former name - the provision does not envisage a change in name back to the original name and that the change in name is made because the person making the application has "absolutely renounced and abandoned the use of his original name" and has assumed a new name - duty to give reasons would depend on the facts, nature, and character of the decision-making and where the giving of reasons is required as a matter of fairness and openness. 1 This appeal concerns a claim for a refund of input tax credits (ITC) under the GST Act. The key issues were whether s.8 of the GST Repeal Act extinguished the right to refund due to late submission and whether such delay justifies forfeiture. The court held that s.8 only applied to the August 2018 claim, while earlier claims (May–July) remained valid. The Respondent may withhold refunds pending audit but not forfeit them. The Appellant's delay was not unreasonable. The forfeiture was thus illegal, and the High Court's decision was erroneous. 1 Section 30 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) - Direct payment from the principal to subcontractor after subcontractor has obtained adjudication decision in its favor against the main contractor - Whether the principal may refuse a direct payment under s.30 CIPAA on grounds that it did not consent to the main contractor appointing the subcontractor – Under PWD Form DB (Rev. 1/2010) - meaning of principal under s. 4 CIPAA and the meaning of a “chain of construction contracts” - whether contractual terms and administrative circulars of the principal may be allowed to modify the express contractual terms under CIPAA - whether the failure of the principal to comply with written notice under s.30(2) CIPAA is fatal in the circumstances of the case or whether an adverse inference may be drawn against the principal - whether there was “money due or payable” from the principal to the main contractor at the time of the subcontractor’s request for payment under s.30(1) CIPAA - whether retention sum or performance guarantee sum deducted from work done by the main contractor and retained by principal constitute “money due or payable” under s.30 CIPAA - whether an adverse inference may be drawn against the principal for failure to produce the certificate of termination cost after more than 14 months have lapsed since the termination of its main contractor – whether the retention sum or performance guarantee sum may be forfeited in full by the principal without proper accounting for it - whether the principal has discharged its evidential burden by a mere say so that it does not owe the main contractor without producing any supporting document for additional costs incurred in completing the balance 0.14% of the Works. 1 Addendum Order - Order 55 Rule 7 of the ROC 2012 - Section 69(2) CJA - Rule 7(2) RCA - Rule 7(3A) RCA - Section 69(3) CJA - judicial review -Article 42 of the Federal Constitution - mandamus - Section 44(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1950 1 Medical misconduct - Dismissal of complaint by Malaysian Medical Council - Originating Summons - Judicial Review to quash the MMC’s dismissal of his complaint - Right to Appeal - Sections 30 and 31(1) of the Medical Act 1971 - the Scope of an ‘Aggrieved Person’ - the repeal of Section 31(2) of the Medical Act 1971 - Retrospective Effect - Section 42(5) of the Medical (Amendment) Act 2012 - Section 30(1)(a) & (d) of the Interpretation Act 1948 - 1 Judicial review - leave application - O 53 r 3 (2) of the Rules of Court 2012 - Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution - service of statement and affidavit in support to AGC - s 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code - control and direction of criminal prosecutions and proceedings - appropriate, rare and exceptional cases - exercise of discretion of AG - amenable to judicial review - two-step threshold - presumption of legality – presence during ex parte hearing for leave - assist the court - not as a party - O 53 r 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 - role of AG at leave stage - compelling and prima facie proof - malice - mala fide - attempt to obstruct a transparent investigation - communication blatantly ignored - IGP was not decision maker – whether wrong party named - O 53 r 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 1 1. The appellant company (Appellant) entered into a “Carpark Operator Cum Licence Agreement” dated 1.10.2019 (Agreement), with Bukit Damansara Development Sdn. Bhd. (BDD). According to the Agreement, among others, BDD granted the Appellant a license to operate car park services, including valet services (Car Park Services), at VSquare @ PJ City Centre, Jalan Utara, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor (Building). The Agreement was for a period of five years, commencing on 1.10.2019 and concluding on the 30.9.2024 (Expiry Date). 1 2. Around December 2020, the second respondent (2nd Respondent) entered into a separate arrangement with BDD wherein the 2nd Respondent acquired ownership of the Building from BDD for a consideration of RM147 million. 1 3. By a “Notice of Assignment” dated 2.11.2021 from BDD to the Appellant (copied to the 2nd Respondent), BDD informed the Appellant that, among others, BDD had assigned, novated and transferred absolutely all of BDD’s rights, interest, benefits, liabilities and obligations under the Agreement to the 2nd Respondent. 1 4. The first respondent company (1st Respondent) is a subsidiary of TH Properties Sdn. Bhd. (which is part of the 2nd Respondent’s group of companies). 1 Allegation of real danger of bias by trial Court; findings and statements in High Court Judge's grounds of judgments; striking out application under O.18 r.19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 Civil appeal - Pensionable members of the Malaysian Armed Forces - Article 132, 137 and 147 of the Federal Constitution - Armed Forces Act 1972 - Pensions Regulations 1982 - Whether any pension adjustment had been carried out from 2002 to 2013 by the Defendants - Whether there was unequal treatment by the Defendants in the Plaintiff’s pensions adjustments - Appeal by the Defendants is allowed. 1 Supporting Judgment Article 8(1) FC – Equality – Premised on the above Federal Court cases, whether an executive policy, action or decision (Executive Policy/Action/Decision) has breached Article 8(1) FC- whether an executive policy, action or decision Executive Policy/Action/Decision had provided for the same treatment for all persons in a particular class - whether an executive policy, action or decision Executive Policy/Action/Decision has not discriminated against any person and there is therefore no contravention of the equality provision in Article 8(1)- Executive Policy/Action/Decision had discriminated against a particular or group of persons-whether there exists a nexus between the Reasonable classification and the object of the Executive Policy/Action/Decision-is the Reasonable Classification proportionate to the Object 1 Land acquisition – building on the scheduled land was demolished in 2012 due to a landslide – the schedule land was already vacant and barren circa 2012 due to demolition and prior to acquisition – the acquisition was gazetted in 2014 – the Land Administrator acquired the scheduled land under section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486] for the purpose of repairing and rehabilitating the condition of the hill slope – Projek Memperbaiki Runtuhan Cerun di Jalan Puncak Setiawangsa 2, Setiawangsa, Kuala Lumpur – Applicant claims compensation for the loss of the subject building (due to landslide) – loss of the building – no injurious affection – Land reference proceeding 1 Investigation of an alleged customs duties evasion of one TS Steel Sdn Bhd(TS Steel) - Freezing Order under section 44 of the AMLATFA to freeze the current account of TS Steel. at the 1st Defendant - Seizure Order under section 50 of the AMLATFA was issued - DPP commenced a Forfeiture application under section 56 of the AMLATFA to forfeit several bank accounts including the current account - Plaintiff filed Third-party Application (TPA) claiming interest in the current account - The High Court and Court of Appeal allowed and confirmed the Plaintiff"s bona fide TPA - TS Steel was wound up - 1st Defendant released the said sum to the lnsolvency Department( MDI) - Whether Seizure Order was still valid and effective when the 1st Respondent released the said sum to the MDI - Whether the amendment to section 52A of the AMLATFAPUA applied restrospectively - Whether the Seizure Order prevail over a Winding Up Order - Whether the 1st Respondent was negligence and had breached the statutory duty - Whether the 1st to 4th Respondents are liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff. 1 Contract – Privity of contract – Novation – Appellant’s original contract with DBKL novated to concessionaire, Alam Flora Sdn Bhd – No direct contractual relationship between Appellant and Government Respondents – "No privity" clause in Concession Agreement – Appellant a "stranger" to the agreement – Claim against Government unsustainable. 1 Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Quantum meruit – Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Claim for reasonable compensation for services rendered – Where a valid and subsisting contract exists between the Appellant and a third party (AFSB) under which full payment was made, a claim under Section 71 or quantum meruit against a non-contracting party (the Government) is not available. 1 Constitutional Law – Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution – Discrimination – Provision applies to public law and administration by a public authority – Not applicable to disputes arising from private commercial contracts voluntarily entered into by parties. 1 Tort – Misfeasance in public office – Elements of the tort – Abuse of public power by a public officer with targeted malice or reckless indifference to the probability of harm – Failure to prove bad faith, ill-will, or intention to injure – Public officer acting in accordance with official procedure and existing laws – Tort not established. 1 Government Contracts – Concession Agreement – Corporate veil – Government not liable for contracts entered into by separate legal entities (DBKL, AFSB). 1 Appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 30 March 2023 which was made in favour of the Respondent in a relation to a purported fraudulent land transfer - Whether the 1st and 2nd Appellants are immediate and not subsequent purchasers - Whether the 1st and 2nd Appellants are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. 1 Claims for ad-hoc service’s payment-whether the principle and condition of quantum meriut under section 71 Contract Act applicable-whether there is absence of contractual agreement 1 Medical Negligence – Duty of care – Informed consent – Failure to disclose material risks – Departure from multidisciplinary tumor board recommendation – Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) vs. Cryoablation – Bolam test – Standard of care in treatment and aftercare. 1 Damages – General Damages – Pain and suffering – Assessment of quantum – Severity of injury – Full-thickness burn – Multiple surgeries and prolonged treatment – Reasonableness of award – Principles in Yang Salbiah & Anor v Jamil bin Harun. 1 Damages – Special Damages – Private medical expenses – Reasonableness and justification – Two-stage test from Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai – Availability of treatment in government and local private hospitals – Novus actus interveniens – Award of one-third of claimed expenses. 1 Damages – Aggravated Damages – Compensatory nature – Distinction from exemplary damages – Conduct of defendant – Lack of compassion, remorse, and callous attitude – Whether award is punitive or compensatory – Principles in Rookes v Barnard and Dr. Chandran Gnanappah v Gan See Joe. 1 Costs – Award of costs in medical negligence cases – Complexity of trial – Engagement of foreign expert and senior counsel – Proportionality – Reasonableness – Principles in Bukit Tinggi Hospital Sdn Bhd & Anor v Navin Sharma Karam Chand. 1 Trespass- structure which formed part of a drain built was on the Land and encroached onto the Land owned by the respondent- defence of justification and pleaded statutory immunity for the existence of the Drain- existence of the Drain is crucial to avoid any flash flood and/or erosion within the vicinity of the Land and is in the public interest- monsoon drain was already built prior to the Respondents purchase of the said land- statutory duty to maintain storm water drains, culverts, gutters and watercourses within the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur- defence of justification in answer to an allegation of trespass 1 Contract — Procurement of missiles — Delay in delivery — Breach of contract — Liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) — Whether time was of the essence — Whether LAD amount of 24.5% of contract value excessive — Whether actual loss must be proven — Section 75 Contracts Act 1950 — Burden of proof under Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd [2019] 2 CLJ 723 — Application of Tekun Nasional v Plenitude Drive (M) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 10 CLJ 206 — Whether High Court erred in finding LAD excessive — Whether High Court erred in ordering full refund of LAD 1 breach of duty of care - allegations of assault and school bullying - special needs students - complaints on non-compliance with educational regulations and standards - section 28 of the Persons With Disabilities Act 2008 1 Appeal against the decision to dismiss the Originating Summons filed pursuant to s. 103E of the Legal Profession Act, 197 -was it a misconduct to describe an opponent litigant, who was also by profession an advocate and solicitor, as a frivolous and vexatious litigant? - whether the DB should accord the appellant a right to be heard before the DB made its decision. 1 Originating Summons for an order for sale pursuant to section 256 of the National Land Code - Issue of limitation - Whether the Respondent’s action is time-barred under section 21(1) of the Limitation Act - Whether there was an acknowledgement of debt by the Appellant 1 Winding Up Matter - Validation Of Creditors' Meeting And Decisions Made Thereat, Replacement Of The Official Receiver As Liquidator – CA 1965 – s 619 (6) 2016 (CA 2016) – section 279 CA (1965) - 1 Setting aside decision of a liquidator to sell assets of a company; allegation of undervalue; approval of court under section 487(3) of the Companies Act 2016; whether section 517 may be used to set aside a prior order of court granted under section 487(3). 1 Winding Up Matter - Validation Of Creditors' Meeting And Decisions Made Thereat, Replacement Of The Official Receiver As LiquidatorWinding up – CA 1965 – s 619 (6) 2016 (CA 2016) – section 279 CA (1965) 1 Legal Profession - Disciplinary Committee - Inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee — Appointment of Disciplinary Committee was delayed - Appellant filed originating summons seeking a declaration that the Disciplinary Board's appointment of the Disciplinary Committee members was out of time in accordance with section 103A of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) – time stipulated in the LPA is mandatory - non-compliance renders the proceedings invalid - Whether High Court judge’s refusal to grant declaratory reliefs on basis of originating summons being premature was correct in law. 1 This appeal concerns foreign investors’ claims against a Malaysian company wound up after the 1997–1998 financial crisis. The Appellants invested in the “Raya Fund” through Abrar Global Asset Management Sdn Bhd (AGAM), which collapsed when the Respondent, AGAM’s parent company, failed to repurchase shares. The Appellants’ proofs of debt were rejected by the liquidator, prompting High Court proceedings that were dismissed for lack of privity of contract, as agreements were with AGAM, not the Respondent. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld that fraud, fiduciary breach, and trust claims were unprovable in liquidation without prior writ action and leave. 1 -whether an owner of a vessel (Vessel Owner) could rely on a defence that gambling is illegal, in an admiralty action in rem by a company appointed by the Vessel Owner to operate and maintain the vessel as - 1 (1) a passenger cruise vessel; and 1 (2) a casino (when the vessel was in international waters). 1 -admiralty action in rem under s 20(1)(a), (2)(m) and (p) of United Kingdom’s (UK) Senior Courts Act 1981 [SCA (UK)] read with s 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA) 1 -ASOC plead sufficient “material facts” as required by O 18 r 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Civil procedure - Appeal - Legal burden of proof - Reversal of burden - Distinction between legal burden and Evidential burden Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Expert evidence - whether Non-expert opinion preferred over expert testimony - Documentary evidence - Viva voce testimony - Witness credibility - Inconsistencies and contradictions- failure to consider reliability- Maritime law - Bunkering operations - Fuel segregation - Absence of contemporaneous records Appellate review - Erroneous appreciation of evidence - Findings plainly wrong 1 Arbitration Act 2005 - Setting Aside the Ex Parte Enforcement Order - to enforce the Award pursuant to section 39 of the Arbitration Act 2005 - application to set aside the Award pursuant to section 37 of AA 2005 - Arbitral Award, ss 37(1)(a)(iv), (v), (3), 39(1)(a)(iv), (v) and (3) AA - Articles 34.2 and 34.3, 1 Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Defect in jurisdiction — Whether jurisdictional issue could be raised in subsequent proceedings 1 Arbitration — Arbitral Tribunal — Expert evidence rejected by the Tribunal — Whether Tribunal bound to accept expert evidence — Whether Tribunal must give cogent reason in accepting or rejecting expert evidence — Whether s 33(3)(b) of AA is breached. 1 Arbitration — Arbitral Tribunal — Expert evidence rejected by the Tribunal — Whether Tribunal bound to accept expert evidence — Whether Tribunal must give cogent reason in accepting or rejecting expert evidence — Whether s 33(3)(b) of AA is breached 1 Arbitration – Court-ordered reference to arbitration – Whether different from submission to arbitration – Whether award obtained pursuant to a court-ordered reference to arbitration may be enforced under the Arbitration Act - Whether enforcement should have been pursuant to section 24A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 1 Contract Law – Whether the subcontract from the Appellant to the Respondent was an Ali Baba arrangement – Whether such arrangement was illegal as contrary to public policy – Contracts Act 1950 section 24 1 Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Defect in jurisdiction — Whether jurisdictional issue could be raised in subsequent proceedings. 1 Family Law — Matrimonial proceedings — Maintenance — Interim maintenance — Scope and purpose — Limited to immediate living needs of spouse — Assessment based on means and needs of parties — Court’s discretion under section 77 and 78 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 — Variation of maintenance order under section 83 — Grounds: misrepresentation, mistake of fact, material change in circumstances — Innocent misrepresentation — Pleadings and relief sought — Use of interim maintenance for legal fees — No statutory provision for inclusion of legal or professional expenses — Comparative reference to foreign jurisprudence (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 550; UFU (M.W) v UFV [2017] SGHCF 23) — Principle of adherence to pleadings — Appealable error for improper variation — Costs 1 This appeal concerns the court’s power under s 5(1)(a)(v) of the Registration and Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA) to set aside the registration of a judgment of the Singapore High Court on the ground that the enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy in Malaysia. 1 The appellant is a non-profit organisation in Singapore which operates a scheme funded by all general insurance companies and Lloyd’s Underwriters transacting compulsory motor vehicle insurance business in Singapore. The Appellant’s primary function is to ensure that victims of road traffic accidents have recourse when - 1 (1) the driver of a motor vehicle who injures a victim cannot be traced; or 1 (2) the driver of a motor vehicle who injures a victim is without effective insurance to cover his/her liability and is therefore unable to compensate the victim. 1 The Appellant carries on the same function as “Motor Insurance Bureau of West Malaysia” in West Malaysia (MIBWM). MIBWM is likewise a non-profit organisation funded by all general insurance companies in West Malaysia and insurance companies transacting compulsory motor vehicle insurance business in West Malaysia. 1 To give effect to its functions and framework, the Appellant and MIBWM, in Singapore and West Malaysia respectively, had each entered into similar arrangements governing compensation of third party victims of road accident in their respective countries. These arrangements are known as the “Principal Agreement” and “Domestic Agreements”: 1 Arbitration Act 2005 - Ex Parte Enforcement Order - to enforce the Award pursuant to section 39 of the Arbitration Act 2005 - set aside the Award pursuant to section 37 of AA 2005 - Arbitral Award, ss 37(1)(a)(iv), (v), (3), 39(1)(a)(iv), (v) and (3) AA - Articles 34.2 and 34.3 1 These two Appeals primarily concern preliminary issues as to the applicability and the proper interpretation of an Arbitration Clause as well as an Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause as against a third layer subcontractor who was assigned the rights and terms of a subcontract Agreement which was entered into by 1st and 2nd layers subcontractors. - the two Appeals impugn the sole and singular decision to dismiss the Stay Application (albeit against different portions and points of the same decision). - 1 Issue 1: Whether the Learned Judge was correct in finding that the Arbitration Clause and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause within the 2nd Subcontract were enforceable against SKSB in view of the express incorporation and adoption of the 2nd Subcontract within the IESB LA; 1 Issue 2: Whether the Learned Judge was correct in its reading and interpretation of both the Arbitration Clause and the Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause and concluding that the reference to arbitration was only optional (not mandatory); and 1 Issue 3: Whether the Learned Judge was correct to find that Apex’s requests for extensions of time did NOT effectively denote that Apex had abandoned its right to refer the dispute to arbitration. 1 Held: Allowing Appeal 1547 and dismissing Appeal 1704 1 Transfer and consolidation of proceedings; item 12 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; order 4 rule 1 and order 57 rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012; inherent powers of court and powers existing before Merdeka Day to transfer proceedings between courts within each High Court in Malaysia 1 Leave to execute judgment under Order 46 rule 2 of the ROC - Whether judgment had been superseded by settlement agreement? - Principles applicable when granting leave - Whether interference with decision of High Court warranted? 1 Principal provisions on scheme of arrangement - Legislative purpose of scheme of arrangement - restraining order - section 366 of the Companies Act 2016 "CA 2016") do not prohibit consecutive (fresh) applications for convening orders - requirements for restraining order under s. 368 of the CA 2016 - whether consecutive applications of restraining order constitute an abuse of court process - act of filing a proof of debt would tantamount to the creditor submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court. 1 Misuse of company's winding-up process and statutory remedies under Section 351 of the Companies Act 2016 1 section 44 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 - jurisdiction to grant the Erinford Injunction pending an application for leave to appeal - reliance on the Letter of Offer is misconceived - no formal tenancy agreement was concluded, finalised or executed - attempt to relitigate issues or revive an interim injunction amounts to an abuse of the court’s process – allowing the injunctive relief would be inappropriate, unfair, unjust and inflict greater hardship 1 Civil procedure — Ex parte application — Leave to serve writ out of jurisdiction — Insufficient affidavit — Advocate affirming affidavit on material and disputed facts — Rule 28 Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978 — Rule 28(c) — Exception limited to formal or undisputed facts — Sources and grounds of information or belief — Order 41 r.5(2) Rules of Court 2012 — Failure of full and frank disclosure — Material non-disclosure — Good arguable case — Order 11 r.4 Rules of Court 2012 — Discharge of leave to serve writ out of jurisdiction — Order 12 r.10(1) Rules of Court 2012 1 Application to oppose the registration of trademark; first use of trademark in Malaysia; whether use by a related or associated company confers a right to the appellant to itself register the mark in Malaysia. 1 Civil appeal – Breach of confidence – Passing Off – Conspiracy to injure – Unlawful interference with trade – Breach of directors’ duties – Appeal allowed 1 specific performance - declaration on wrongful termination of facility agreement - conditions precedent - estoppel by convention - whether the respondent is estopped from relying on clause 6 and schedule 2 of the facility agreement to terminate - whether time was at large - parties are bound by agreement. 1 Section 96(3) RTA application by insurer - Insurance policy renewed after accident - Time of renewal stated in cover note - Whether insurance policy operative - Whether doctrine of waiver applies 1 Insurance, Motor insurance, Commercial vehicle policy, Road Transport Act 1987, sections 91(1)(b) proviso (aa), 91(3) and 96 (3), "one-policy-two covers principle", statutory exemption, contractual excalusion, scope and limit. 1 Whether the respondents can execute the said Judgement without obtaining judgment against the appellant vide a recovery action - Whether the Declaratory Order is valid and in compliance with sub-s 96(3) of the RTA 1987 - Whether the respondents are required to set aside or file a collateral action to impeach the Declaratory Order 1 Breach of duties by Directors-whether business judgement rule under Section 214 of the Companies Act 2016 applies-what constitutes the best interest of company-whether entitlement to be discharge under Section 581 Companies Act 2016 applicable. 1 This appeal raises two novel questions, namely: (1) if two inferences are equally open to the court from the same set of facts and these inferences do not concern the credibility of a witness, is there a rule that the court should accept the non-sinister inference and reject the sinister inference (Non-Sinister Inference Rule)?; and (2) with regard to the tort of conspiracy to injure a claimant by unlawful means, whether Malaysian courts should substitute the requirement of actual knowledge regarding the unlawful means on the part of the conspirators and accept a lower threshold of “constructive intent” as laid down by the apex courts in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) as follows - (a) the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Cement LaFarge Ltd v BC Lightweight Aggregate Ltd [1983] 1 SCR 452; and (b) the joint judgment of Lord Sumption and Lord Lloyd-Jones JJSC in UK’s Supreme Court case of JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor [2018] 2 WLR 1125. 1 Company law; directors' duties; alleged breach of fiduciary duty; expert evidence; adverse inference; evidence - weight and probative values; Redeemable Convertible Preference Shares; Validity of issuance; Companies Act 1965. 1 Licensed moneylender, moneylending agreements, Money Lending Act 1951, restitution under section 66 Contracts Act 1950, void ab initio, statutory illegality, illegality under section 24 Contracts Act 1950. 1 The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision. Section 40 of the Societies Act 1966 does not mandate prior reference to the Registrar of Societies absent an express constitutional requirement or parties’ consent. The General Council and Executive Committee acted ultra vires the Association’s Constitution by rejecting the Disciplinary Committee’s findings, imposing suspension, and expelling the appellant without proper recommendation or procedure. The appellant was denied natural justice, particularly the right to be heard on appeal and at the extraordinary general meeting. 1 Share Subscription Agreement -failing to redeem and pay the redemption sums for its RPS in accordance with the Principal Agreements- The MOD and DOU constitute contingent securities designed to secure obligations arising from the Principal Agreements - triggered only upon the occurrence of a redemption default- arrangement between parties is contained in several documents all executed simultaneously-must be read together to ascertain the intention of the parties- redemption obligations under the Principal Agreements had not yet crystallized because the conditions under the sub-section above could not be fulfilled- section 72(4) of the Companies Act 2016- substantial overlap and multiplicity of proceedings in that they all sought for a common relief- debt-like repayment schedule rather than a genuine equity arrangement dependent on commercial success- fixed redemption timetable.- non-response to a demand letter may be weighed against the overall evidence - failure to respond must not be equated to admission of a claim. 1 The appeal concerns voting rights under the Strata Management Act 2013, where the Court of Appeal held that parcel owners in arrears cannot vote unless disputes over the arrears are resolved through a full trial, directing the case to proceed as a writ action. 1 This appeal concerned the enforceability of an alleged oral revenue-sharing agreement arising from estate agency business. Although the High Court found that such an agreement existed, it held the arrangement to be illegal and unenforceable as it involved profit sharing by a non-registered person, contrary to r 91(1) of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Rules 1986, rendering the contract void under s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950. Section 22C of the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 was held inapplicable. The Court of Appeal found no basis for appellate intervention and dismissed the appeal. 1 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17; Faraid Order, Stakeholder Agreement, Release Agreement, Montreal Convention 1999; section 7(2) and section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956; legal heirs / next-of-kin of deceased's crew member. 1 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17; Faraid Order, Stakeholder Agreement, Release Agreement, Montreal Convention 1999; section 7(2) and section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956; legal heirs / next-of-kin of deceased's crew member 1 Negligence –failed to exercise reasonable care during construction works-Duty of care – Legal obligation owed by the defendants to neighbouring landowners Breach of duty – Alleged failure to manage land and water flow responsibly during development-Statutory breach – Based on Section 5(1)(b), Water Act 1920 – Obstruction or alteration of natural water flow - Section 25(1)-Environmental Quality Act 1974 – Alleged unauthorised discharge affecting the environment. 1 (1) whether the plaintiff, an orthopaedic surgeon (Plaintiff), could file this suit (This Suit) against the second defendant “Pantai Hospital Manjung” (2nd Defendant), when the 2nd Defendant is not a legal entity which is recognised in law; 1 (2) whether the “Consultant’s Agreement” dated 21.10.2013 (Agreement) between the first defendant company (1st Defendant) and Plaintiff was a “fixed term contract for services” wherein the Plaintiff was an independent contractor for the 1st Defendant and was not its employee without - 1 (3) whether the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim in This Suit (ASOC) had pleaded a material fact that the 1st Defendant had breached a contractual duty under the Agreement to act in good faith towards the Plaintiff [Contractual Duty (Good Faith)] as required by O 18 r 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC); 1 (4) if the ASOC did not plead the 1st Defendant’s breach of the Contractual Duty (Good Faith) [1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith)], had the Plaintiff adduced evidence of the 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) at the trial of This Suit (Trial) and the admissibility of such evidence had not been objected to by the Defendants?; 1 (5) if the court can consider the 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) in this case - 1 (6) whether the 1st Defendant’s Termination (Agreement) had failed to comply with Clause 8.1; and 1 (7) if the 1st Defendant’s Termination (Agreement) was invalid . 1 Medical negligence; baby born with cerebral palsy as a result of hypoxia during childbirth; duty of care of a medical facility and the person-in-charge; the power of the court to make reference to medical publications to ascertain the applicable standard of care. 1 Appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 15 July 2022 after a full trial, allowing the Plaintiff's claim and dismissing the Defendant's counterclaim - Procedural issue relating to the amounts which were actually pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim(SOC), the oral application to amend made during post-trial clarification and the absence of any evidence of a decision by the learned Judge to allow the oral application and absence of any formal order of amendment and the absence of any Re- Amended Writ and Re-Amended SOC to reflect the amounts that were eventually ordered by the learned Judge - Order 20 Rule 9 of the ROC - pleadings not amended within 14 days of the order granting leave to amend - Whether the order shall cease to have effect - Substantive issues on the Plaintiff's claim and Defendant's counterclaim - Whether the documents regarding the Plaintiff's indebtedness and the testimony of DW2 based on the records of the Defendant are relevant and admissable under section 73A(1)(a)(ii) of the Evidence Act 1950 - The Defendant's appeal is allowed in part and the Defendant's counterclaim is allowed. 1 Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA) - Housing Development(Control and Licensing)Reg.1989 (HDR) - Private Lease Scheme - Liquidated Ascertained Damages(LAD) for late delivery of vacant possession aftermath the decision of the Federal Court case of Obata - Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd V Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals - Whether the Second Actor Theory applies in the present case. 1 Contract – Tenancy Agreement – Early Termination – Construction of “Notwithstanding” Clause – Unilateral Termination – No Requirement to Assign Reasons – Legitimate Expectation – Section 29 Contracts Act 1950. 1 Appeal against High Court decision on wrongful termination of a three-year tenancy for turf farming. Court of Appeal held Clause 15 (early termination) operates independently of Clause 6 (default), permitting termination upon three months’ notice without reasons or mutual consent. “Notwithstanding” wording given plain meaning. Termination valid despite MACC investigations context. Doctrine of legitimate expectation inapplicable to private law disputes. Section 29 Contracts Act not engaged. Appeal allowed with costs. 1 Liquidated ascertained damages claim - discrepancy between the LOA and other documents - no written notice given for extension of time - unwarranted delay - rectification costs - loss of income from student intake - defendant’s counter-claim for payment - issuance of a valid payment certificate certainly must be a condition 1 Multiple causes of action fraud, conspiracy to defraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive trust or breach of trust, breach of professional duty of care and implied retainer - this appeal concerns the sale & purchase of a land which never took place - despite paying RM9 million to a company which was said to have finalized the sale & purchase of the subject land from the actual land owners, the prospective purchaser i.e. the Plaintiff, walked away with nothing but losses which lead to the filing of suit - High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim - No Negligence, No Duty of Care - i. Wrong application of the parole evidence rule - failure in appreciating the contemporaneous documents - blatant failure to look at the money trail - Whether there was a total failure of consideration by the Respondent which disentitles them to forfeit the RM9 million plus paid by the Plaintiff to D1 via D2 - Whether the Defendants have committed fraud and/or fraudulent misrepresentation on the Plaintiff - SPA was premised on fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, it is voidable and liable to be rescinded. The monies paid by the Plaintiff under the terms of the SPA should be returned to the Plaintiff. In the premise, the appeal is allowed. 1 Plaintiff alleged respondent gave assurance to repay-Respondent denied assurances or representations-Fraud claim classified as common law vs equitable fraud-Distinction-Common law fraud requires intention to deceive-Equitable fraud requires unconscionable conduct, not intention-Takako Sakao v Ng Pek Yuen & Ors-Equitable fraud arises from trust or confidence-Statement of claim need not label type of fraud-Zung Zang Wood Products v Kwan Chee Hang-Rule-Plaintiff must plead fraud with sufficient particulars-Details of acts/omissions pleaded-Collateral agreement for novation of BIMB Contract-Oral assurances to repay advances-Email shows acknowledgment of repayment obligation-Learned JC erred in limiting claim to common law fraud-Facts show unconscionable conduct and misappropriation by respondent -Balance of probability standard-Sinnayah & Son v Damai Setia-Respondent admitted entitlement but diverted repayment 1 Land ownership dispute - Legal and beneficial interest–whether Administrator rights can be defeated by purported sale of land-authenticity of documents-non calling of witness-whether Section 340(2) National Land Code applies-whether trust created-Section 344 National Land Code 1 Defamation — Plaintiff’s standing — Applicability of Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd to individual plaintiffs; whether public figure barred from suing. Defamatory meaning — Whether statements alleging religious subversion and national betrayal lower plaintiff in estimation of right-thinking members of society. Reference — Whether indirect or collective references (“MEREKA”) reasonably identify plaintiff. Publication — Whether speech at public university forum constitutes publication to third parties. Defences — Justification (truth), fair comment on matters of public interest, qualified privilege in public discourse. 1 Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Appeal against the decision of the learned JC in allowing the Respondents' claim against the Appellant for the losses suffered by the Respondents who had acted based on the misrepresentation made by the exclusive agents of the Appellant regarding a Guarantee Rental Return (GRR) Scheme which led the Respondents to purchase four condominium units - Whether Edward Lim and/or TE Asia was an agent of the Appellant and made the purpoted representations -Whether the purpoted representations were binding on the Appellant - Whether the GRR Scheme is illegal. 1 This is an appeal case concerning a trust over properties. The High Court initially ruled in favor of the Respondent, establishing the existence of a trust. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's decision, finding no appealable error. The key issues revolved around the admissibility and enforceability of the trust documentation, valuable consideration, and the legality of the trust considering the bumiputra status of the land. The court found that an express trust existed and the trial judge was correct in their assessment. 1 Wakaf Land, Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Terengganu, res judicata, abuse of court process, Administration of Islamic Law (Amendment) Enactment 1963 (1382), Islamic Wakaf Validating Enactment No. 10/1972, Administration of Islamic Religious Affairs (Terengganu) Enactment 1422H/2001M. 1 Keywords: Whether the impugned paragraph refer to Plaintiff – Whether Plaintiff was defamed – Article referred to a group of individual - Particeps criminis - No compelling evidence that Plaintiff’s reputation was adversely impacted – Particulars of malice - O 78 r 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 - Defence of justification and qualified privilege - Lucas-Box Justification - Reynolds Defence – Opportunity to publish statement in response but elected not to - Read as a whole – Whether necessary to determine element of defamatory when finding of fact has been made that words do not refer to Plaintiff 1 DEFAMATION – Libel – Anonymous digital “poison pen” letter – Dissemination via email and WhatsApp – Whether respondent responsible for publication EVIDENCE – Presumption of fact – Evidence Act 1950, s 114A(3) – Meaning of “originates from” – Custody or control of computer at material time – Rebuttal of presumption DIGITAL EVIDENCE – Metadata – Evidential weight – Failure to identify particular device – Circumstantial evidence insufficient APPEAL – No basis for appellate interference – Appeal dismissed with costs 1 Marriage and Divorce – Division of Matrimonial Assets – Section 76, Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 – Whether Setapak Shoplot and Titiwangsa House constituted matrimonial assets – Whether sale and transfer of properties were bona fide – Whether resulting trust could be invoked where companies not joined as parties – Whether High Court correctly exercised discretion under Section 76. Company Law – Separate Legal Personality – Whether Hemraj Sdn Bhd and Mahalaxmi Sdn Bhd should have been joined as parties – Effect of non-joinder – Whether transfer of matrimonial property to related company constituted mala fide disposal. Equity – Resulting Trust – Requirement of contribution and intention – Whether respondent’s indirect contribution sufficient to create beneficial interest – Whether presumption of resulting trust rebutted. Evidence – Burden of Proof – Sections 101–102 Evidence Act 1950 – Whether respondent discharged burden to prove contribution – Whether appellant proved that transfers were bona fide. Family Law – Contribution (Direct and Indirect) – Consideration of non-financial contributions – Length of marriage – Welfare of child – Discretion of court in assessing equitable division. Property – Sale and Transfer – Whether transfer to related company intended to defeat respondent’s claim – Whether mala fide established. Appellate Review – Scope of Interference – Whether appellate court should disturb findings of fact – Whether discretion exercised judicially by trial judge. 1 Whether non party may invoke arbitration clause - Whether there was incorporation by way of reference - Effect of integration clauses 1 Negligence- tortfeasors (neighbors, contractor, and civil engineer) - assessment/reassessment of damages - approach of appellate court in an appeal on assessment/reassessment of damages - whether damages stemming from loss of use of property are special damages required to be pleaded or general damages - aggravated/general damages. 1 HIRE PURCHASE: Repossession — Leave of court — Application for — Instalments exceeding 75% of cash price paid — Default of two consecutive instalments — Application for leave to issue statutory notices under s. 16(1A) Hire-Purchase Act 1967 — Whether application to be made inter partes or ex parte — Purpose of s. 16(1A) — Whether mere procedural safeguard to verify defaults — Natural justice — Audi alteram partem — Whether right to be heard preserved by issuance of Fourth Schedule Notice — Hire-Purchase Act 1967, ss. 16(1), (1A) & (1B) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating Summons — Ex parte application — Application for leave of court to commence repossession proceedings — Challenge against validity of ex parte order — Whether application required to be inter partes — Rules of Court 2012 — Whether procedural fairness compromised — Nature of leave under s. 16(1A) Hire-Purchase Act 1967 1 External legal counsel - claim the benefit of the fruits of litigation - sharing of the 10% retained by the Appellant from the sum paid in settlement of the debt recovery suit - agreement with the Respondent was illegal and void as it constituted a touting arrangement - Respondent had acted as an agent for Martech and he had advised Martech to commence legal proceedings against E-pay- acts of the Respondent amounted to touting and had flouted Rule 51and Rule 52 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1979 (LP “Rules”)- Section 37 and Section 40 of the Legal Professional Act 1976- void and unenforceable under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950. 1 This appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 117 CPC, which governs remand applications. 1 The key issue – whether only the Investigating Officer (IO) in charge must personally appear before the Magistrate – or whether another officer may do so if the IO is unavailable – High Court held that Section 117 CPC requires the IO’s personal attendance – the Appellant argued that such an interpretation creates operational difficulties, disrupts investigations, and burdens police efficiency. 1 Findings by Court of Appeal – Section 117 CPC requires two obligations from the IO - (i) transmitting the police diary entries, and (ii) producing the accused before the Magistrate. It does not mandate the IO’s physical presence – The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction No. 11 of 2021 reinforces this by focusing on proper filing of documents and the accused’s production, not IO attendance – Safeguards for the accused remain intact – production before the Magistrate, legal representation, the requirement for diary entries, and written reasons for remand – Judicial scrutiny ensures protection of liberty – The absence of the IO does not compromise fairness or promote “arrest first, investigate later”. 1 Conclusion – The High Court erred in law – Insisting on the IO’s personal attendance imposes unnecessary rigidity, disrupts investigations, and burdens police operations – The appeal is allowed and the High Court’s decision is set aside. 1 application for forfeiture of property - section 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (“the AMLATFPUAA 2001”) - Key elements and requirements of section 56 forfeiture - Whether there was any ‘unlawful activity’ in terms of a serious offence under the Second Schedule to the AMLATFPUAA 2001 justifying the forfeiture order - Whether the car was proceeds from an unlawful activity or an instrumentality of an offence - Whether cautioned statements of the appellant inadmissible - section 71 and 32 of the AMLATFPUAA 2001 1 rasuah projek dituduh pertuduhan solar dibicarakan bersekali jointly tried seksyen 16(a)(A) Akta SPRM 2009 saksi pembelaan perayu hakim bicara penarikan diri recusal artikel meragui intergriti dokumen pihak ketiga Kod Etika the star penyerahan afidavit dideposkan penangguhan segera urgency draft judgement final opinions assisted leaked publish website lodge investigation misconceived dismissed material deemed admitted permohonan muktamad pendapat audacity keberanian research unit 1 Criminal Law — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Penal Code s.304(a) — Alternative charge offered after representation — Guilty plea — Appellant stabbed deceased (uncle/nephew relationship) during quarrel — Single stab wound to chest — Domestic dispute between migrant workers — Argument escalated — Deceased allegedly the aggressor — Appellant reacted in heat of moment — No intention to kill — Mitigation factors considered (first offender, married with young children, desire to return home). 1 Sentencing — Principles — Public interest — Seriousness of offence — Death occurred — Need for deterrence and protection of the public — Guilty plea acknowledged but limited weight due to gravity of offence — Sentencing trends for s.304(a) PC (18–20 years) — High Court imposed 15 years’ imprisonment — Whether sentence manifestly excessive. 1 Criminal Procedure — Appeal against sentence only — Limited scope of appellate review — Whether trial judge erred in principle or exercised discretion improperly — Whether sentence disproportionate — Appellate court satisfied sentence consistent with sentencing trends — Sentence not excessive — Appeal dismissed. 1 MINORITY KEYWORDS Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Isu: Sama ada wujud kes prima facie terhadap kedua-dua tertuduh - kawalan atau jagaan serta pengetahuan terhadap dadah - niat bersama - agent provovateur - Inferens daripada tingkah laku menunjukkan mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap kewujudan dadah - seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - kebolehterimaan (credibility) keterangan - seksyen 40A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - evidence of agent provocateur admissible - seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - seksyen 37 (da)(iii)) Akta yang sama – Isu: Kekhilafan penggunaan anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - “penjualan” merupakan keterangan langsung (direct evidence) – tiada (appealable errors) – Isu: Sama ada terdapat percanggahan material di dalam kes pendakwaan - percanggahan-percanggahan bukanlah suatu yang material yang mencacatkan kes pendakwaan – tidak memusnahkan kredibiliti saksi-saksi pendakwaan - tidak menjejaskan pembuktikan core issues pemilikan dadah - kuasa ingatan (power of memory) seseorang adalah berbeza – Isu: Kegagalan mempertimbangkan keterangan tertuduh dan saksi-saksi pembelaan - seksyen 182A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. 1 MINORITY KEYWORDS Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Isu: Sama ada wujud kes prima facie terhadap kedua-dua tertuduh - kawalan atau jagaan serta pengetahuan terhadap dadah - niat bersama - agent provovateur - Inferens daripada tingkah laku menunjukkan mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap kewujudan dadah - seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - kebolehterimaan (credibility) keterangan - seksyen 40A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - evidence of agent provocateur admissible - seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - seksyen 37 (da)(iii)) Akta yang sama – Isu: Kekhilafan penggunaan anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - “penjualan” merupakan keterangan langsung (direct evidence) – tiada (appealable errors) – Isu: Sama ada terdapat percanggahan material di dalam kes pendakwaan - percanggahan-percanggahan bukanlah suatu yang material yang mencacatkan kes pendakwaan – tidak memusnahkan kredibiliti saksi-saksi pendakwaan - tidak menjejaskan pembuktikan core issues pemilikan dadah - kuasa ingatan (power of memory) seseorang adalah berbeza – Isu: Kegagalan mempertimbangkan keterangan tertuduh dan saksi-saksi pembelaan - seksyen 182A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 1 Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Pemakaian anggapan mengedar menurut Seksyen 37(da)(xvi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - DNA dan cap jari tertuduh pada dadah hanya bersifat keterangan sokongan – siasatan sambal lewa oleh pihak polis – tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan atau milikan penuh dengan pengetahuan terhadap dadah – kuasa mengendalikan dadah tanpa campur tangan orang lain – pembelaan tertuduh bersifat pemikiran terkemudian (afterthought) – beban pembuktian apabila anggapan statutori beroperasi – common sense approach 1 the offence of drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (“the DDA") - whether exclusive possession established - meaning of possession – both physical and mental elements - exclusivity of possession - credibility of the police witnesses - absence of corroborating finger print or DNA evidence - double presumption 1 seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama - seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen yang sama - seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama - anggapan yang menentang - seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - memprejudiskan pembelaan - salah laksana keadilan - seksyen 182A Kanun Prosedur Jenayah - anggapan berbangkit di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 di atas imbangan kebarangkalian 1 Criminal Law - Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which is punishable under Section 39B(2) of the same Act. - no full grounds of judgment in the Record of Appeal - HCJ’s written broad grounds of judgment at the end of the trial - At the conclusion of the trial, the Court found the Accused guilty as he had failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking and failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the Prosecution’s case. - his defence was not sustainable - pre-conditions for admission of evidence under S.27 EA - the Accused failed on his defence and the sentence is one that is within the purview of the law - Appeal is dismissed 1 Accused was charged with trafficking methamphetamine-section 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952-in possession of the illicit drug-failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking-prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable double-conviction is safe-appeal dismissed. 1 Isu-isu: (A) Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan (kawalan dan jagaan) dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut - tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan terhadap dadah-dadah di tangannya dan di dalam bonet kereta - tertuduh turut mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap kesemua dadah-dadah yang dirampas - (B) Penerimaan masuk seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950 - tertuduh telah memandu arah SP4 dan pasukannya ke kereta – membuktikan pengetahuan tertuduh terhadap dadah-dadah yang disembunyikan di dalam bonet kereta - keterangan tertuduh adalah tidak kredibel, suatu pemikiran terkemudian, rekaan dan penafian kosong semata-mata - (C) Kegagalan mengemukakan CCTV di tempat kejadian dan ketiadaan siasatan dijalankan berkenaan cap jari dan DNA tertuduh pada barang kes - keterangan CCTV, cap jari dan DNA tertuduh pada barang kes hanya mempunyai nilai sokongan yang kecil - inferens yang menentang di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak terpakai terhadap pihak pendakwaan - (D) Kegagalan memanggil Ramesh / Saravanan sebagai saksi pendakwaan - inferens yang menentang di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak boleh digunakan oleh pembelaan terhadap pendakwaan - (E) Pembelaan tertuduh - keterangan tertuduh / pembelaan adalah tidak kredibel, suatu rekaan dan berbentuk penafian kosong semata-mata 1 Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal - Section 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether there is a prima facie case of error? - Medical Device Act 2012 and the Medical Act 1971 - Public Policy - Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 - Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 1 Kaedah 105 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan 1994 - Seksyen 307 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Procedure for appeal - Seksyen 308 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Transmission of appeal record - Seksyen 60(1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 - Powers of Court of Appeal - Seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Akta 593) - Seksyen 7 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue - Seksyen 7 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Seksyen 167 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Seksyen 60 (1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 1 Seksyen 16(a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Kesalahan menerima suapan - Seksyen 50 (1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Anggapan dalam kesalahan tertentu - Seksyen 52 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Keterangan rakan sejenayah dan ejen provokasi – Isu: (A) Sama ada elemen pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 16 (a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan - (B) Kredibiliti SP8 - (C) Sama ada tertuduh berjaya mematahkan anggapan yang berbangkit - (D) Sama ada ID21 wajar diterima masuk sebagai keterangan - Seksyen 41A Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Kebolehterimaan keterangan dokumentar - (E) Sama ada Penama Prakash merujuk kepada tertuduh - Tiada kesangsian berkaitan isu identiti sebenar tertuduh - (F) Ketidakcekapan peguam tertuduh terdahulu – Tiada kepincangan dan salah laksana keadilan 1 Jenayah – Rasuah – Seksyen 17(b) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (ASPRM) – Sama ada pertuduhan cacat dan defektif – Sama ada izin Pendakwa Raya cacat dan defektif – Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi material sebagai saksi pendakwaan membangkitkan inferens menurut Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 – Perbezaan jumlah wang rasuah/ wang suapan yang diberikan – Rayuan silang – Hukuman tidak sah – Hukuman terlalu ringan. 1 Preliminary Issues – The appellant argued the charge sheet was unsigned (breach of s.172 CPC) and that no new sanction was obtained after the charge was amended. The Court of Appeal held s.172 CPC applies only to High Court cases, not Sessions Court. Absence of a signature was at most a minor irregularity under s.422 CPC, not causing injustice. Sanction under s.129 CPC was not required; only the Public Prosecutor’s consent under s.58 MACC Act was needed, which was duly given. Preliminary objections were therefore dismissed. 1 Circumstantial Evidence & Credibility – Although there was no direct evidence of forgery, circumstantial evidence established that only the appellant could have forged the P2 letter, which benefited him in securing the Phase 2B M&E contract. The testimonies of SP3, SP8, and SP9 were accepted as credible, as they had no financial interest and were deceived by the appellant. The appellant’s defences were rejected as mere denials and afterthoughts, while expert testimony (SB3) was deemed speculative. 1 Findings & Appeal – The Sessions Court concluded that the appellant forged and used the P2 letter dishonestly to mislead UMS officials and the Prime Minister, with intent to cheat. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld these findings, giving deference to the trial court’s assessment of witnesses. The appellant’s claim of prejudice due to SP3’s later police report was rejected, as SP3 had been extensively cross-examined and the conviction was supported by independent and circumstantial evidence, including the appellant presenting the P2 letter to Dato’ Azlin and his company’s benefit. 1 Civil Procedure — Judgment debtor summons — Examination of corporate officer — Whether Order 48 of the Rules of Court 2012 applicable — Whether separate ex parte application and order required — Interpretation of Order 74 and Section 4 of the Debtors Act 1957 — Validity of instalment order — Judicial discretion — Personal liability of director — Whether director personally liable for instalment payments 1 [1] This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Learned Magistrate that dismissed the Appellant’s application under Order 20 Rule 5 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) to amend the Appellant’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (Defence and Counterclaim). 1 [2] This Court finds that the Learned Magistrate has not erred in his decision when he dismissed the Defendant’s application. This Court agrees with the finding of facts and the determination of the law of the Learned Magistrate. In other words, the Learned Magistrate has not made any appealable error requiring appellate intervention. 1 [3] Thus, there is no necessity to interfere with the findings of the Learned Magistrate. 1 [4] In this regard, for all the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in this appeal to warrant appellate intervention. 1 [5] As such the appeal is dismissed with costs. 1 Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Majistret yang membenarkan permohonan untuk mengetepikan Writ Distres yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah. Writ Distres dikeluarkan pada 25 Mac 2025 untuk menahan harta alih yang dijumpai di dalam premis di Tingkat Besmen, Bawah dan Mezzanine, Bangunan TAR, Nos. 404–410 Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman bagi jumlah RM84,500.00 - Rayuan Perayu dibenarkan. 1 Civil Procedure – Appeal – Competency of appeal – Whether appeal barred under s 28(1)(a) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Whether appeal raised questions of law notwithstanding quantum below RM10,000 – Natural justice – Adjournment – Failure to secure subpoenaed witness – Whether refusal to adjourn constituted denial of fair trial – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s.28(1), & s.68(1)(a) – Rules of Court 2012, o.18 r.7, o.38 r.14, & o.55 rr.2, 3, & 4. 1 Banking – Credit card facility – Unauthorised transactions – Whether bank in breach of contract or duty of care – Whether bank liable under Quincecare duty – Whether bank complied with Bank Negara Malaysia guidelines – Banker and customer relationship – Nature of duty – Whether fiduciary duty owed – Whether relationship governed by terms of agreement – Co-operative Societies Act 1993, s.7, s.8 & s.9 – Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad (Special Provisions) Act 1978, s.3 – Development Financial Institutions Act 2002, s.3 and the First Schedule. 1 Appeal - Claims by the insured against the insurer for the loss arising from the theft of the insured’s car – the Car was in the possession of a third party who had agreed to purchase the Car from the insured – the Car was stolen before full payment was made - whether the legal ownership remained with the insured – whether the insured has insurable interest over the Car under the insurance policy – the Court held that the insured continued to have insurable interest as the legal title to the car was never transferred to the third party – terms of the Agreement stipulates that the legal ownership would only be transferred upon full payment of the purchase price. Magistrate Court’s Decision was affirmed thus, appeal was dismissed. 1 [1] The Appellant files this application under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 25). 1 [2] This Court is persuaded by the submissions of the Respondent that the Appellant has failed to provide a justified reason to answer the Preliminary Objection by the Respondent. The omission and failure to comply with the ROC cannot override the mandatory requirement. The reason given in paragraph 10.2 of the Appellant's Affidavit Sokongan (Encl. 26) is a mere contention that because the Respondent's solicitor has applied for the Grounds of Judgment (for the Respondent's Appeal in another appeal for the same action at the Magistrates Court), therefore action has been taken by the Plaintiff's solicitor to obtain the Grounds of Judgment. 1 [3] The conduct of the Appellant to disregard Order 55 rule 3(5) of the ROC, the omission and failure to comply with the ROC, cannot override the mandatory requirement to strictly adhere to the provisions of Order 55 of the ROC. 1 [4] Based on the above deliberations, Enclosure 25 is dismissed with costs. The Preliminary Objection by the Respondent is allowed. In the light of this, since there is no appeal proper before this court, this appeal is therefore struck off. 1 Civil Appeal — Appeal against decision of Magistrates’ Court — Standard of review — Whether decision against the weight of evidence — Whether findings of fact perverse or plainly wrong 1 Tort — Negligence — Duty of care — Contractor carrying out excavation works — Damage to underground cables belonging to utility company — Whether contractor exercised reasonable diligence 1 Evidence — Documentary evidence — Utility mapping plan — Unsigned and uncertified document — Admissibility under Part B of the Rules of Court 2012 — Weight and probative value of unauthenticated document — Failure to call maker of document (land surveyor) — Adverse inference 1 Civil Procedure — Trial — Re-examination of witness — Reference to document not disclosed to opposing party and not part of common bundle — Whether document admissible — Exclusion of evidence 1 Pleadings — Burden of proof — Defendant’s entire case predicated on accuracy of utility mapping — Onus on defendant to prove its defence — Failure to discharge onus 1 Appeal. Road traffic accident. Negligent lane change. Assessment of liability and damages. This judgment concerns an appeal in a running-down action involving a collision between a motorcycle and a motorcar. The High Court found that the Magistrate erred in assessing inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s evidence and in applying the principles of law on negligence. It was found that the 1st defendant was negligent in changing lanes without warning, causing the collision. The appeal was allowed on the issue of liability while the award for general damages was affirmed as fair and reasonable. 1 1. The Defendant appealed against the decision of the learned Magistrate who had allowed the Plaintiff’s claim with cost against the Defendant after a full trial. The Plaintiff’s claim was for the Defendant’s misuse of a corporate credit card given to the Defendant as the Executive Director of the Plaintiff. 1 Conclusion 28. In the upshot the Court agreed with the decision of the learned Magistrate except for the issue of unjust enrichment, in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim. 1 29. This Court therefore dismissed the Defendant’s appeal against the decision of the learned Magistrate with a cost of RM5,000. 1 A condominium owner sued the management corporation for losses after a water leak took nine months to repair (actual work: 17 days). The Magistrate dismissed the claim, focusing on whether the leak originated from "common property." The High Court reversed, finding the Magistrate misdirected himself. The real issue was whether the nine-month delay was reasonable. The Defendant's pleadings, conduct, and witness testimony showed clear acceptance of responsibility. The Defendant's witness admitted the delay was a "mistaken decision" to wait for insurance approval that caused the Plaintiff's loss. The Court held the Defendant could not first assume responsibility then deny legal obligation (doctrine of approbation and reprobation). 1 Water leakage - management corporation - admission of liability - approbation and reprobation - unreasonable delay - loss of rental - appellate intervention 1 This appeal involves extended warranty obligations where the Appellant, a financial adviser managing an online warranty platform, disputed RM4,820 liability for repairs claimed by the Respondent. Four customer claims were rejected by the Appellant. The Appellant argued it merely facilitated the platform while AIL bore all liability. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Appellant presented itself as warranty provider through branded certificates stating "managed by Steadfast Advisory" and exclusive customer contact channels. The Court applied adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 for failing to call AIL witnesses, establishing that customer-facing entities cannot disclaim responsibility through backend insurance arrangements. 1 Extended warranty; financial adviser; insurance intermediary; Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950; equitable assignment; Financial Services Act 2013 1 [1] Perayu dalam rayuan ini telah memohon untuk mengemukakan keterangan baharu dalam rayuannya (Lampiran 15). 1 [2] Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan berbangkit daripada pengusikan pada pepasangan meter di bawah akaun bekalan elektrik No: 6124220004696409 bagi premis yang beralamat di No.29-01, Jalan Damai Perdana 6/1F, Taman Damai Perdana, Bandar Damai Perdana, 56000 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur (Premis). 1 [3] Oleh itu, Lampiran 15 dibenarkan dan rayuan di Lampiran 1 juga adalah dibenarkan. 1 Civil procedure - appeal against summary judgment - Whether the Appellant has raised triable issues to be tried- Terms of purchase order stating delivery will be made upon payment of balance purchase price- whether failure to pay balance purchase price constitutes a triable issue 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Setting aside judgment in default - Irregularity - Personal service - Cause papers were not personally served - Cause papers left in mailbox - Whether the process server identified the defendant - No verification of the defendant's identity - Defective service - Order 62, rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Civil Procedure — Amendment of pleadings — Application to amend statement of claim disallowed by Sessions Court — Appeal allowed by High Court — Applicable principles on amendment — Whether application made bona fide — Whether any prejudice caused to opposing party can be compensated by costs — Whether amendments would change the nature and character of the action — Court considering whether real issues in controversy should be decided once and for all — Rules of Court 2012, O 20 — Whether amendments arose from same factual matrix — Whether amendments should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings 1 summary judgment-The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendant. It is not enough for a defendant to make bare allegations or give a mere general denial of a debt-If an alleged triable issue is contradicted or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents the defendant’s alleged triable issue must be rejected-in O. 14 proceedings, a defendant’s affidavit must “condescend upon particulars” and “should, as far as possible, deal specifically with the plaintiff’s claim and affidavit, and state clearly and concisely what the defence is, and what facts are relied on to support it-mere general denial that the defendant is [not] indebted will not suffice -an admission is a proper acknowledgement of a debt-A court is entitled to view the totality of the evidence including the non- reply to a solicitor’s letter of demand to hold that there is no triable issue 1 When the Respondent obtained the Amended Judgment in Default in the First Suit, the Respondent’s cause of action based on the Appellants’ breach of the Loan Facility had merged with the said judgment, thereby extinguishing the original cause of action - Respondent is no longer entitled to file a similar cause of action based on the breach of the Loan Facility - the sale of the Property did not give rise to any fresh cause of action to the Respondent for the recovery of the outstanding sum under the Loan Facility – the Respondent is barred from filing the Present Suit based on purportedly the same cause of action by the doctrine of res judicata - Respondent’s cause of action would have accrued was on 9.5.2003 when the Respondent issued its letter of demand to recall the Loan Facility and demanded the repayment of the entire outstanding sum thereunder - the Present Suit which is filed 20 years later is filed out of time - the Appellants’ appeal is allowed with costs and the Present Suit is dismissed with costs. 1 Arbitration — Stay of Proceedings — Application for stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration — Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Prima facie arbitrable dispute — Threshold for granting stay — Mandatory reference to arbitration 1 Contract — Interpretation of Agreements— Core Business Agreement (CBA) — Arbitration clause in CBA (Clause 20) — Ad-hoc Quotation — Whether Quotation was a standalone contract — Whether Quotation superseded CBA — Incorporation of arbitration clause 1 Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings (Non-Signatory) — Extension of stay to non-party — Non-party to CBA (2nd Defendant) — Tort of Conspiracy — Avoiding inconsistent determinations/findings — Risk of fragmented litigation — Circumventing arbitration — Sensible case management/inherent jurisdiction — Derivative and inseparable claims 1 Whether the SCJ erred in fact and/ or in law in finding that the Defendant has proved the actual losses incurred during the Injunction Period 1 Civil Procedure – Striking out – Counterclaim – Whether counterclaim scandalous, frivolous or vexatious – Abuse of process – Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and/or (d) Rules of Court 2012 – Whether counterclaim discloses reasonable cause of action – Whether defence of confession and avoidance properly pleaded – Whether deed of settlement vitiated by mistake or misrepresentation – Failure to plead particulars – Advocate and solicitor as party to deed – Inherent jurisdiction – Order 92 rule 4 – Sessions Court decision affirmed – Appeal dismissed 1 Contract – Deed of settlement – Validity – Allegation of mistake or misrepresentation – Whether deed null and void – Whether party induced to enter deed – Specific Relief Act 1950, section 27(b) – Whether legal justification to avoid liability – Silence upon default – Conduct inconsistent with repudiation – Whether binding agreement Legal Profession – Advocate and solicitor – Drafting of deed of settlement – Professional obligations – Whether conduct amounts to abuse of process – Whether legal practitioner may plead ignorance of legal effect – Estoppel by conduct Evidence – Pleadings – Bare allegations – Absence of particulars – No supporting evidence – Whether sufficient to sustain counterclaim – Summary judgment granted – Whether Sessions Court erred 1 Evidence — Admissibility — Without prejudice communications — Email and WhatsApp message marked “without prejudice” — Whether privileged — Whether waiver of privilege occurred — Whether mere reference to prior negotiations sufficient to constitute waiver — Whether Sessions Court erred in admitting documents — Malayan Banking Bhd v Foo See Moi [1981] 2 MLJ 172 and Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1988] 3 All ER 737 applied 1 Civil Procedure — Appeal — Appeal against interlocutory decision — Application to expunge documents from common bundle — Whether documents inadmissible — Whether learned Sessions Court Judge erred in law — Whether appeal should be allowed 1 Contract — Pre-incorporation contract — Letter of confirmation for rent executed before company’s incorporation — Whether contract made on behalf of company — Whether subsequent conduct amounted to ratification — Absence of privity — Whether novation required — Companies Act 2016, s 65(1) and (2) 1 Company Law — Pre-incorporation transactions — Liability of promoter — Ratification by company after incorporation — Effect of draft agreement prepared in company’s name — Promoter and successor principle — Pleading of material facts 1 Civil Procedure — Striking out pleadings — Whether claim disclosed reasonable cause of action — Plain and obvious test — Abuse of process — Whether claim obviously unsustainable — Order 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) & (d) Rules of Court 2012 1 Practice and Procedure — Pleadings — Material facts — Requirement of proper pleading — Distinction from Dae Hanguru line of cases 1 1. The Appellant-Plaintiff in the Sessions Court (P) sued the 1st Respondent-Defendant in the Sessions Court (1st Respondent). P is the father. The 1st Respondent is his daughter. The suit is to evict the 1st Respondent from the house she is presently residing in. 1 2. The 2nd Respondent-Intervener in the Sessions Court (R2) is P’s wife, and the 1st Respondent’s mother. R2 also resides in the same house. R2 applied to intervene in the Sessions Court suit. In her application, R2 prayed for leave to intervene, and for an Order to stay the Sessions Court proceeding, pending her matrimonial dispute with P in a Family Court Judicial Separation Petition. 1 3. The Sessions Court granted R2 leave to intervene, as well as the Order to stay the Sessions Court proceeding. 1 4. P appeals against the Sessions Court’s Order. Should his appeal be allowed or dismissed? 1 Garnishee proceedings — Consent judgment — Enforcement of monetary judgment — Stakeholder funds — Solicitor-client relationship — Third-party debt attachment — Order 49 ROC 2012 — Jurisdictional threshold — Debt due or accruing due — Temporal requirement — Liquidated and certain debt — Fiduciary duty extinguished — Disbursement pursuant to instructions — Statutory declaration — Burden of proof — Evidential threshold — Appellant’s failure to establish actionable debt — Collateral dispute — Improper forum — Appellate review — Findings of fact — Perverse or plainly wrong test — No mala fides 1 application to strike out the Appellant’s Writ and Amended Statement of Claim - O. 18, r. 19(1)(a) to (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 - breach of the SPA - 1 Statutory interpretation – whether the equitable doctrine of estoppel can be invoked against the application of the terms of a sale and purchase agreement in the form prescribed by HDA 1966 and the HDCL Regulations 1989 which is a piece of social legislation HDA1966 and HDCL Regulations 1989 - Whether acceptance of only the keys to housing accommodation without the separate issue of strata title estops the purchaser from challenging the developer that there is no effective delivery of vacant possession 1 Whether the SCJ erred in fact and in law by failing to appreciate that the Plaintiffs have a triable issue as they have pleaded fraud and misrepresentation - : Whether the SCJ erred in fact and in law by failing to appreciate that the Plaintiffs have a triable issue i.e. whether there is a Second Contract between the parties - Whether the SCJ erred in fact and in law by failing to recognise that the outstanding payment amount submitted by the Defendant was incorrect - Whether the SCJ erred in fact and in law by failing to consider that the Plaintiffs have two appeals which are pending before the CA 1 1. The Plaintiff had applied under Order 17 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) for the directions of the Court for the release a sum of money belonging to the 1st Defendant deposited with the Plaintiff which the Plaintiff had been directed by the 4th Defendant to be paid out to the 2nd and 3rd Defendant. 1 2. The relevant provisions of Order 17 of the Rules applicable to this case provides as follows: 1 1. Entitlement to relief by way of interpleader (O. 17 r. 1) 1 (1) Where- 1 (a) a person is under a liability in respect of a debt or in respect of any money, goods or chattels and he is, or expects to be, sued for or in respect of that debt or money or those goods or chattels by two or more persons making adverse claims thereto; 1 the person under liability or, subject to rule 2, the Sheriff may apply to the Court for relief by way of interpleader. 1 3. Mode of application (O. 17 r. 3) 1 (1) An application for relief under this Order shall be made by originating summons unless made in a pending action, in which case it shall be made by a notice of application in Form 27 or 28, whichever is appropriate. 1 (2) Subject to paragraph (3), an originating summons under this rule shall be supported by evidence that the applicant- 1 (a) claims no interest in the subject matter in dispute other than for charges or costs; 1 (b) does not collude with any of the claimants to that subject matter; and 1 (c) is willing to pay or transfer that subject matter into Court or to dispose of it as the Court may direct. 1 16. In the upshot the 1st Defendant’s appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge is dismissed with a cost of RM10,000. 1 The second defendant (appellant) is appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge who dismissed with costs the second defendant's application to dispose of the case filed in the Sessions Court on a point of law under Order 14A rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). The plaintiff's claim is primarily governed by the Electricity Supply Act 1990 for meter tampering as well as other factual and legal issues that will be addressed during the trial. The plaintiff claims that the second defendant opened an electricity account under the name of the first defendant without the first defendant's permission. The first defendant is mentally ill. 1 The second defendant argues that since she is not a consumer of electricity supply, how can the plaintiff succeed in its case if the claim is for theft of electricity, particularly when the actual consumer is the first defendant who should be held responsible? As for the second issue of law, the second defendant argues that there is no way she could be legally liable to compensate the plaintiff for any loss of revenue when that responsibility rests with the registered consumer. 1 The Court finds that the questions are not appropriate for determination under Order 14A of the ROC 2012, since the supporting facts are heavily contested. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. 1 There are two (2) appeals before the court arising from two (2) interlocutory matters dealt with by the Sessions Court. Due to the interconnected nature of both appeals, they are heard together. 1 In Civil Appeal No. WA-12ANCvC-183-10/2024 ("Appeal 183"), the plaintiff (appellant herein) is appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in allowing the defendant (respondent herein) to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim dated 18 June 2024 under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC"). 1 Meanwhile, in Civil Appeal No. WA-12ANCvC-185-10/2024 ("Appeal 185"), the plaintiff is appealing the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge who dismissed its application for judgment in default of defence. 1 The court finds that not only was there no compliance with the court's directions regarding such filing of the affidavit in reply, but there was no proper application to the Sessions Court for an extension of time made by the plaintiff. The also court finds that the plaintiff's action amounting to a multiplicity of proceedings. 1 Based on the above findings, Appeal 183 and Appeal 185 are dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 each, subject to allocatur. 1 Penghakiman terus (Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012); Pembatalan pembelaan dan tuntutan balas (Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1)(b), (c), (d) KKM 2012); Penamatan dan tamat tempoh perjanjian penyewaan; Penyewaan bulan ke bulan (holding over); Milikan kosong (vacant possession); Pelaksanaan spesifik di bawah Seksyen 20(1)(c) Akta Relief Spesifik 1950; Kegagalan mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang sah 1 rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen; penghakiman terus di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; peruntukan perundangan dan berhak secara prima facie; tiada appealable error 1 appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge, which dismissed the Appellant’s application to set aside a writ of distress issued ex parte on 27 June 2024. These matters raise triable issues that go to the very foundation of the landlord-tenant relationship. Session Court failed to properly consider or address this evidence in her grounds of decision. This amounts to a material misdirection warranting appellate intervention. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 1 Whether the delay is genuine and not made in bad faith; the delay in filing the RoA will not prejudice the Plaintiff; and the irregularity is curable and does not amount to an illegality - Whether the appeal is based on the Defendants’ meritorious DCC - 1 This appeal arises from the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge delivered on 12 November 2024 allowing the Respondent’s application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”), thereby striking out the Appellant’s Writ and Statement of Claim on the ground that the action amounted to an abuse of the process of court and ought instead to have been brought by way of judicial review pursuant to Order 53 ROC 2012.. The Appellant appeals to this Court contending that the Sessions Court erred both in fact and law by mischaracterising the nature of his claim, which was essentially contractual and private in nature, and by summarily striking out an action that disclosed a reasonable and arguable cause of action fit for adjudication at trial. 1 This appeal is on the amendment application the trial judge dismissed. In the trial, the plaintiffs applied to amend the commissions and fees claimed from the defendant. It was made after the defendant suggested to the witness that certain commission types were unpleaded. The High Court found that the appeal could not be appealed to the Court of Appeal based on s 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 reinforced in Kempadang Bersatu and Asia Pacific Higher Learning. The decision is not final as it did not resolve the parties' rights. As the application came too late (about three years after the claim was filed), it lacked good faith and would unfairly disadvantage the defendant and significantly alter the character of the claim. The court made a decreasing tolerance for late amendments especially when they appear to be strategic responses to issues emerging during the trial. 1 Amendment of pleadings – Delay; Civil procedure - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Prejudice - Change in character 1 [1] Ini merupakan rayuan atas keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS) yang menolak tuntutan Perayu-Perayu selaku Defendan-Defendan di Mahkamah Sesyen, mengenai permohonan untuk mengenepikan penghakiman ingkar pembelaan bertarikh 6.12.2024 dan pelanjutan masa untuk memfailkan pembelaan dan tuntutan balas. 1 [2] Perayu telah lewat memfailkan Rekod Rayuan dan kini memohon lanjutan masa (Lampiran 3). 1 [3] Mahkamah ini telah menolak permohonan lanjutan masa di Lampiran 3 dan sehubungan itu, rayuan ini dibatalkan. 1 [4] Mahkamah merujuk kepada Afidavit Sokongan Lampiran 3 oleh Defendan-Defendan dan mendapati bahawa Afidavit Sokongan Lampiran 3 tersebut telah difailkan di luar tempoh 14 hari yang diperuntukkan KKM 2012. Selain itu, tiada permohonan lanjutan masa dipohon oleh Defendan-Defendan dan kebenaran tidak diberikan oleh Mahkamah ini untuk Defendan-Defendan memfailkan Afidavit Sokongan Lampiran 3 di luar masa yang dibenarkan. Ini menjadikan afidavit yang difailkan di luar masa itu, tidak teratur dan tidak terpakai. 1 [5] berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan yang telah diberikan, Mahkamah ini menolak permohonan di Lampiran 3 dan susulan daripada itu membatalkan rayuan Defendan-Defendan di Lampiran 1 dan permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan telah menjadi akademik apabila rayuan ini telah dibatalkan. 1 Termination clause in Agreement – Whether a party to the agreement may terminate by giving notice and without giving any reason for premature termination – Whether the fixed period for notice of termination stated in the Agreement is applicable only in the event of default by the other party – Order 14A applicable for interpretation of contract – Rules of interpretation of contract – Commercial sense approach – Common sense approach to avoid absurdity when alternative interpretation is illogical 1 Civil Procedure — Discovery — Non-party disclosure — Banking documents — Financial Services Act 2013 — Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1949 — Relevance and necessity — Res judicata — Abuse of process — Locus standi 1 Enclosure 3 is dismissed. As an extension of time was not granted, the Appellant’s appeal was irregular and struck out. Costs of RM3,000 were ordered to be paid to the Respondent, subject to allocator. 1 Rayuan Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di bawah Aturan 14A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Persoalan undang-undang yang dikemukakan ole pihak-pihak telah ditolak. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen timbulkan persoalan undang-undang - permohonan pihak-pihak di bawah Aturan 14A tiada dalam Rekod Rayuan. Rayuan dibenarkan - perintah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen - kes dikembalikan kepada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang lain untuk mengemukakan permohonan pihak-pihak di bawah Aturan 14A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. 1 1.The Plaintiff’s appeal in this case is against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge who had disallowed his claim against the Defendants. 1 13.In the upshot the Court dismisses the Plaintiff’s appeal with a cost of RM3,000. 1 This Court is lastly not satisfied that the failure to answer to the show cause letter itself amounted to contempt. The Sessions Court ruling on this is also set aside. In the premises, the sentence of 7 days imprisonment is quashed. 1 This appeal concerns the propriety of a penal endorsement in a judgment debtor summons (JDS) order requiring structured monthly payments. The appellant judgment debtor sought to remove the penal endorsement from an order directing payment of RM700,000 in monthly instalments of RM100,000, arguing it constituted a mere "money judgment" not subject to committal proceedings. The High Court held that the JDS Order falls within O 45 R 5(1)(a) ROC 2012 as it requires the debtor to perform specific acts (monthly payments) within specified timeframes. Following Hong Kwi Seong v Ganad Media Sdn Bhd (2013) 2 MLJ 251 CA, the Court distinguished this structured payment order from pure money judgments, holding that penal endorsement mandatory under O 45 R 7(4) ROC 2012. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Phung Tze Thiam (2008) 1 MLRA 538 CA and confirmed that company directors may be named in penal endorsements pursuant to O 45 R 5(1)(c) ROC 2012. 1 Judgment debtor summons - penal endorsement - structured payment order; O 45 R 5 ROC 2012; O 45 R 7(4) ROC 2012; instalment payments - money judgment - directors' liability 1 Appellant sought discovery of tenancy documents in a misrepresentation claim regarding the sub-letting authority. The Sessions Court dismissed the application after the Respondent denied the existence of the document, claiming only a consultant role. On appeal, fresh evidence showed Respondent had exhibited a Tenancy Agreement dated 9 December 2022 in separate proceedings—directly contradicting its denial. High Court found three-part test satisfied: documents exist (proven by Respondent's exhibit), relevant to misrepresentation claims, and in Respondent's possession/power. Court rejected fishing expedition and privity arguments. Appeal allowed with costs; discovery ordered. ________________________________________ KEYWORDS 1 Discovery; O 24 ROC 2012; fresh evidence; three-part test. 1 Rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang telah menolak permohonan Perayu untuk mengenepikan Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran - membenarkan rayuan Perayu dengan tiada perintah untuk kos. 1 Contract – landlord and tenant - option to renew tenancy agreement with the term that the renewal rental is to be based on the prevailing market rate subject always that in the event of any increase, such increase shall not be more than ten percent (10%) of the preceding term’s monthly rental has a formula for ascertaining the rate of rental for the renewed term and is not void for uncertainty 1 Whether the delay to the completion of the Project is caused by the defendant - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to back charge the sum of RM131,440.00 on the defendant for the appointment of NYC - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to back charge the sum of RM204,526.98 for scaffolding - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to back charge the sum of RM96,968.80 to the defendant for overtime for Stone Installer - Whether the Defendant is entitled to the sum of RM360,691.17 being the balance amount for work done for the Project 1 This Grounds of Judgement is on the appeal by the Defendant against the decision of the Sessions Court on 2.10.2024 after a full trial allowing the Plaintiff's claim with costs of RM12,000.00 and dismissing the Defendant's counterclaim with costs of RM11,000.00. 1 Enclosure 1. CONTRACT — Maintenance contract — Lump sum contract — Whether contract is a “pure” lump sum contract — Effect of contractual clause requiring monthly verification and certification of works — Whether deductions for non-performance permissible under Clause 29 of Contract— Interim Payment Certificates (IPCs) — Effect of contractor signing IPCs without protest — Estoppel from disputing deductions after final account certification — Primacy of contemporaneous documentary records over oral assertions CIVIL PROCEDURE-Appeal — Appeal against Sessions Court decision dismissing plaintiff’s claim after full trial — Absence of grounds of judgment below — Appellate court’s duty to independently examine record of appeal — Whether findings were plainly wrong or unsupported by evidence — Burden of proof under ss. 101–103 Evidence Act 1950 — Failure of plaintiff to adduce contemporaneous evidence of performance — Whether appellate intervention warranted 1 Enclosure 1. This is an appeal against the judgement of the Sessions Court given on 22.11.2022 dismissing the whole of Bestinet Sdn Bhd (“Appellant”) claims and allowing 3B Idea Creation Sdn Bhd (“Respondent”) counter claim with costs and against the order of the Sessions Court given on 29.11.2021 (29.11.2021 Judgment) in dismissing the Appellants application to Amend the Writ and Statement of Claim (29.11.2021 Order). 1 Appeal from lower court. Construction. Appeal allowed. Termination of contract. CIPAA. Case remitted back to lower court. 1 This appeal concerns whether the Plaintiff, as administrator of the deceased’s estate, proved that the Defendant owed monies for renovation works at three properties. The key issue was whether a handwritten note dated 20.8.2020 was sufficient evidence of the appointment of the contractor, the works carried out, and the sums allegedly outstanding. The High Court held that the Sessions Court had asked the wrong questions and misapplied the burden of proof, including failing to consider section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, and therefore set aside the judgment allowing the claim while maintaining dismissal of the counterclaim. 1 Enclosure 1. CONTRACT:– Principal subcontractor engaged nominated subcontractor for plumbing works and services ( sub-contract) for a housing project- Subcontractor appointed sub-subcontractor to supply and install water tanks as part of the sub-contract –Failure of subcontractor to make payment to sub-subcontractor – Whether sub-subcontractor could claim payment from principal subcontractor – Privity of contract – Whether arose between principal subcontractor and sub-subcontractor – Whether supply of the water tanks benefitted the principal subcontractor- Whether proper recourse for sub-subcontractor supplier to claim against principal subcontractor– Contracts Act 1950, s. 71 – Whether applicable in the case where the principal subcontractor has paid for the works claimed by the subcontractor– Whether there would be unjust enrichment 1 This Judgement is on the appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court allowing the claim by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant for damages for unrectified defects of bungalow house in Shah Alam Selangor that they had purchased from the Defendant. 1 The Plaintiff's appeal here is against the decision of the Session Court on 15.8.2024 awarding the Defendant damages totaling RM1,000,000.00 with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of the decision and costs of RM6,000.00. 1 [1] The Appellant/Plaintiff appeals against the decision of the Sessions Court that dismissed the Appellant’s claim against the Respondent/Defendant for breach of Engagement of Consultancy Agreement (Consultancy Agreement). This Court allows the appeal and the reasons are as deliberated. For ease of reference, the parties will be referred as they were, in the Sessions Court. 1 [2] It is trite law that the Plaintiff must prove its case as provided under section 101 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, once the Plaintiff had adduced prima facie evidence of a breach of confidential information, the evidential burden shifted to the Defendant to rebut and refute. 1 [3] Therefore, the Plaintiff must prove that the information is a confidential information, and that the Defendant had breached his Consultancy Agreement, and that the Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff but had breached that duty while he was employed by the Plaintiff. 1 [4] the breach of his fiduciary obligations includes failing to complete key platform features and not properly handing over work after termination. Based on the above deliberations, the appeal is allowed with costs. 1 Civil Procedure – Appeal – Facts, finding of – Appellate intervention – Insurance – Mortgage Reducing Term Takaful (‘MRTT’) policy – Claim for total and permanent disability (TPD) – Whether the learned SCJ erred in finding that insurer (D1) had waived its right to reject the plaintiff’s claim on the ground of prematurity – Whether the learned SCJ erred in ordering the TPD sum to be paid directly to the plaintiff as ‘Person Covered’ instead of the financier (D2) as ‘Participant’ – Whether the learned SCJ misapplied the reducing balance as per the schedule of the MRTT Plan and thereby granting wrong compensation amount – Whether the plaintiff meets the definition of TPD under the MRTT Plan – Whether plaintiff’s injury fell within purview of TPD – Whether residual ability to perform similar work defeats a claim for TPD – Whether the learned SCJ misapplied Great Eastern Life Assurance (M) Bhd v Prakasa Rao a/l Samachulu [2019] 6 MLJ 350 – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, S.68(1)(a) – Rules of Court 2012, O.55 rr.2, 3, & 4. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of execution pending appeal - Special circumstances - Purely monetary judgment - Whether there is risk of appeal being rendered nugatory - Alleged inability of Respondent to refund judgment sum - Court’s discretion - Conditional stay as appropriate balancing measure between parties’ competing interests 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against decision of Sessions Court - Breach of contract for non-payment of goods delivered - Sessions Court found in favour of Plaintiff and judgment entered against the Defendant - Whether Sessions Court erred in its decision - Whether appellate intervention ought to be applied - No arguable defence proven - Whether certain invoices issued time-barred - s.26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 - No appealable error found and appeal dismissed 1 Civil Procedure — Appeal — Appeal against Sessions Court decision — Appellate intervention — Principles of "plainly wrong" test 1 Company Law — Directors — Fiduciary duties — Duty to act for proper purpose and in good faith in the best interest of the company — Breach of trust — Appropriation of company assets for personal benefit — Section 213(1) of the Companies Act 2016 1 Contract — Friendly Loan — Failure to prove existence of loan — Distinction between capital contribution/investment and friendly loan — Lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence 1 Tort — Conspiracy — Conspiracy to injure — Elements of conspiracy — Requirement of knowledge and intent for co-signatory of cheques 1 Damages — Assessment of Damages — Requirement for factual basis and proof of actual loss 1 Evidence — Admissions — Admissions during cross-examination regarding nature of payments 1 Civil Procedure — Appeal — Appeal against decision of sessions court — Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge which allowed part of the Appellant’s claim against the Respondent — Whether sessions court judge had erred in principle, facts or failed to take into consideration relevant facts in arriving at decision, thus warranting appellate interference 1 Contract — Breach — Agreement — Interpretation of agreement — Representation of long-term Contract Collateral Agreement— Whether there was a representation — Option to Renew — Renewal of Agreement based on Respondent’s representation — Breach of agreement — Whether plaintiff entitled to relief sought in full 1 Appellant could rely on other evidence to support the existence of a trust - It is trite that once a party to litigation has admitted a fact in his pleadings, he shall not be heard to content to the contrary at the trial - The Note is also another admission by the Respondent that the Investments belong to the Appellant - In the Draft Settlement Agreement, the Respondent also admitted that the Appellant had, inter alia, made investments and or purchased shares in ASNB, Public Mutual and FELDA, using the Respondent’s name - during cross-examination, the Respondent had admitted that vide the video recording, the shares in ASNB belong to the Appellant and the Respondent would return the shares in Public Mutual and FELDA to the Appellant upon the Appellant’s request - The law is trite that as the Appellant has discharged her burden of proof, the onus has shifted to the Respondent to disprove the Appellant’s claims- Respondent had wholly failed to meet her evidential burden - Court allowed the Appellant’s appeal with costs. 1 The finding that there was a valid contract between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant is contrary to the evidence produced before the Court - no evidence that the Plaintiff had dealt with the 1st Defendant at all regarding the sale and purchase of the 15,000 boxes of Nitrile Glove - 1st Defendant was not even a company carrying on the business of selling nitrile glove and never made any offer to sell 15,000 boxes of Nitrile Glove to the Plaintiff - there was no intention to create legal relation - Proforma Invoice and the Receipt/Delivery Order were never admitted as exhibits at the trial - both the Proforma Invoice and the Receipt /Delivery Order were indeed forgeries – existence of an agent-principal relationship between 2nd Defendant and 1st Defendant was never pleaded by the Plaintiff - no evidence adduced before the Court at the trial to support the Plaintiff’s contention that the 2nd Defendant was acting as agent of the 1st Defendant - appeal is allowed with costs. 1 illegal moneylending-Moneylenders Act 1951-The burden is on the defendant to prove this assertion of his by virtue of sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act 1950-Burden of proof as to particular fact-question of who in law, shall bear the burden to prove forgery-alleging that his signature on the SSA was a forgery-he bore the onus of proving that the signature was a forgery-The principles on when an Appellate Court can intervene in a trial judge’s findings of fact from decided cases are as follows-The starting premise must be that as the trial judge had based his findings of fact on the evidence of the witnesses, his findings of fact should not be disturbed-It is only in the rare cases where an Appellate Court, lacking the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, is justified in coming to a different conclusion from the trial judge’s findings of fact-It is well-settled law that an Appellate Court will not, generally speaking, intervene to reverse the trial judge’s findings of fact unless the trial judge is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at his decision-As long as the trial judge’s findings of fact can be supported on a rational basis in view of the material evidence, the fact that the Appellate Court feels like it might have decided differently is irrelevant. The trial judge should be accorded a margin of appreciation when his treatment of the evidence is examined by the Appellate Court-Unjust enrichment-In Dream Property, the Federal Court set down the principles of unjust enrichment applicable in Malaysia as follows-The defendant must have been enriched-The enrichment must be gained at the plaintiff’s expense-That the retention of the benefit by the defendant was unjust- There must be no defence available to extinguish or reduce the defendant’s liability to make restitution 1 The law on specific performance of an agreement is well-settled. I need only refer to just one case-It must not be forgotten that there is here a contract for the sale of immovable property. It is the kind of obligation that statute rebuttably presumes to be incapable of being remedied by an award of monetary compensation-Court of Equity is sufficiently empowered to decree specific performance on terms-There is also precedent for decreeing specific performance and then leaving it to the defendant to later apply to have the decree vacated on the ground of impossibility of performance-It is trite law that an appellate court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court to which the law entrusts the primary task of evaluation of the evidence. The appellate court has a duty to intervene only where a trial court has so fundamentally misdirected itself, that one may say that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion-When it comes to agreement to buy shares the Court clearly can and should grant specific performance by virtue of section 11 (1)(c) illustration [c] of the Specific Relief Act 1950 1 Introducer fees - commission claim - unlicensed dealing in securities- illegality as threshold bar - Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ss 58 & 59 - Securities Commission Guidelines for Marketing Representatives - absence of Marketing Representative registration - no binding contract - subject to management approval - pleadings deficiency - burden of proof - principal–agent relationship - effective cause doctrine - mere introduction insufficient - lack of causation - institutional investment mandate - temporal gap - quantum merit - failure to prove industry rate - no unjust enrichment. 1 Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact in her determination on the issue of the defendant being a registered user of the plaintiff’s services - Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact in her determination on the issue of the plaintiff providing connected sewerage services to the defendant’s premises - Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact in deciding that the plaintiff is entitled to claim the total outstanding amount of RM323,588.48 1 This is an appeal against the 20 September 2024 decision of the learned Session Court Judge dismissing part of the appellant's claim. The decision was that the learned Session Court Judge had limited the appellant's claim at the lower court, where instead of awarding the appellant the full sum of RM550,718.66, which the appellant claims should be made jointly and severally liable by the respondents, the learned Session Court Judge awarded only RM417,810.82 against the third respondent, not the respondents collectively. 1 Having reviewed the arguments presented by the parties and the reasoning provided by the learned Sessions Court Judge, the Court does not find any appealable error on the part of Her Honour in awarding RM417,810.82. The reason for this is that the appellant and the third respondent were the only contracting parties for the implementation of the work. Therefore, the third respondent must still certify the amount due to the appellant. As a result, the first and second respondents would not be able to verify its accuracy and would be forced to pay any amount claimed by the appellant as an assignee. 1 In light of the above findings, the Court is constrained to dismiss the appellant's appeal with costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocatur. 1 This is an appeal lodged by the appellant as defendant in the Session Court against the decision of the learned Session Court Judge dated 27 September 2024, which allowed the respondent's claim as the plaintiff therein, effectively ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff maintenance/service charges of RM594,827.03. 1 The court finds that the plaintiff acted ultra vires of the Strata Management Act 2013 by imposing maintenance/service charges based on the square feet of area on the defendant. 1 The court further finds that a case that violates fundamental laws should not be entertained by the court. From the court's perspective, the trial judge's decision was plainly wrong, and appellate intervention is warranted in this appeal. This is of paramount importance as dismissing the appeal would effectively confirm an illegal claim by the plaintiff. 1 rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen; Sama ada terdapat kontrak; hubungan kontrak; kontrak renovation; 1 This is an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant against the learned Sessions Court Judge's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim with costs of RM10,000.00. 1 The facts revealed before the court showed that a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 30 November 2016 for the plaintiff to operate a shop (school uniform shop) on the defendant's premises and to supply and sell uniforms designed specifically for the school. After the contract expired, the parties attempted to extend it for another three years, but could not agree on the terms. As part of the winding-down process, the plaintiff was allowed to stay on the premises without paying rent for a year. Despite this, the plaintiff claimed there was a renewal of the contract, but the defendant contested this, saying that the plaintiff had acknowledged in its email that the parties could not renew the agreement. 1 In the end, the appeal was dismissed with costs because there was no appealable error in the learned Sessions Court Judge's decision. In its decision, the High Court upheld the Sessions Court's finding that the parties did not renew their contract. 1 Appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge based on an alternative claim founded on unjust enrichment, and dismissed the Appellant’s counterclaim. 1 These issues analysed within the framework of the legal principles governing – (a) unjust enrichment; (b) joint liability under the C ontract Act 1950; (c) the requirement for proper pleadings, and (d) the appellate standard of review. 1 Sessions Court’s findings reflect misdirection on questions of law, specifically the misapplication of unjust enrichment and section 44, and insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence concerning the parties’ longstanding commercial arrangement. The findings were therefore plainly wrong. 1 Misrepresentation – Evidence of misrepresentation must be adduced by each and every plaintiff – Failure to adduce evidence of misrepresentation fatal – Sessions Court erred in allowing claim by 149 other persons in purported representative action who failed to adduce evidence – Only the 1st Plaintiff who testified to prove misrepresentation is entitled to judgment for General Damages – Act of deceit to make a representation with full knowledge that it would be impossible to fulfill the representation – S.37 Specific Relief Act 1950 – Court empowered to order both rescission and damages to be assessed and paid 1 Civil Procedure – Appeal – Tenancy dispute – Whether tenancy agreement renewed – Whether double rental claim valid – Whether repair costs proven – Whether counterclaim properly dismissed – Whether COVID-19 Act defence applicable Landlord and Tenant – Renewal of tenancy – Alleged automatic renewal – Disputed documents– Failure to prove delivery – Adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 Landlord and Tenant – Holding over – Double rental – Section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956 – Sufficient notice to quit – Tenant failed to vacate – Double rental awarded – Evidence – Documentary evidence – Part A bundle – Whether inclusion amounts to admission of truth – Tiow Weng Theong v Melawangi Sdn Bhd [2018] 6 MLJ 761 followed – Letters from Plaintiff’s solicitors not admissions by Defendant – effect of Melawangi Sdn Bhd v Tiow Weng Theong [2020] 3 MLJ 677 Contract – Repairs and reinstatement – Breach of covenant to yield premises in good and tenantable condition – Statutory Interpretation – COVID-19 Act 2020 – Section 7 – Defence of inability to perform – Judicial notice of MCO insufficient – Burden of proof not discharged Civil Procedure – Counterclaim – Renovation costs and deposit refund – Expenses incurred prior to tenancy – Documents inadmissible (Part C) – No benefit to landlord proven – Counterclaim dismissed 1 Late delivery of vacant possession and completion of common facilities. The plaintiffs claimed LAD, alleging defects in the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) and the invalidity of an extension of time granted by the Deputy Controller. Trial court allowed plaintiffs’ claim, finding the CCC defective, the extension of time invalid, and LAD properly calculated from the booking fee date. High Court dismissed the appeal. Reaffirmed binding Federal Court authority on statutory compliance and consumer protection principles. 1 This appeal was dismissed. Costs of RM10,000 were awarded to the Respondent. This Court ruled that this case was not an appropriate one for appellate intervention. The Appellants had failed to show that the Sessions Court did not accord sufficient judicial appreciation of the facts and evidence of the case (refer to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Gan Yook Chin & Anor v Lee ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309). The Appellant had not demonstrated that the ‘plainly wrong’ test was fulfilled to disturb the Sessions Court’s finding (see the Federal Court’s decision in Ng Hooi Kui v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1). 1 This Court is bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97. Premised on the foregoing reasons, this Court refrained from intervening in the decision of the Sessions Court as it was not satisfied that the Sessions Court did not accord sufficient judicial appreciation to the evidence in the case. In dismissing this appeal, costs of RM10,000 were awarded to the Respondent. 1 Conclusion [54] In the premises, based on the evidence and analysis, this Court allows this appeal as stated above. The Respondent is ordered to: (a) Pay the Appellants the sum of RM3,000.00 as general damages for negligence 1 (b) Return the deposit and fee paid to the total of RM8,200.00 1 (c) Interest of 5% on the judgment sum from today’s date until the date of full and final settlement 1 (d) Costs in the sum of RM10,000.00 is to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellants for the subject to allocator. 1 This Court’s Orders [93] This appeal is allowed. The decision of the Sessions Court is set aside in its entirety. 1 [94] The Respondent’s claims are dismissed. The Appellant’s Counterclaim is allowed. Nominal damages of RM5,000 for losses incurred due to the 1st Respondent's misrepresentation is awarded to the Appellant, to be paid forthwith. 1 [95] Interest of 5% on the judgment sum from the date of this judgment until the date of full and final settlement. 1 [96] Costs in the total of RM30,000 is awarded to the Appellant subject to allocator, to be paid within one month from today. 1 This appeal concerned the quantum of damages awarded in a personal injury claim arising from a road accident. The defendant challenged seven heads of damages totalling RM722,723.38 including costs for travel, physiotherapy, EPF contributions, home care, utilities, nursing and renovations. The High Court held that the learned Sessions Court Judge had properly evaluated the medical evidence, expert opinions and the practical realities of caring for a severely disabled plaintiff. Applying established appellate principles, the court found no error of law or fact warranting interference. The appeal was dismissed and the damages awarded were upheld in full. 1 Whether the SCJ had erred in law and fact in dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for special damages - Whether the SCJ had erred in law and fact when he quantified general damages in the sum of RM250,000.00 - Whether there is an appealable error as there is a distinct difference in the method of computation of interest in the Brief GoJ dated 31.1.2024 and the GoJ 1 The dispute concerned liability for RM1 million in architectural fees arising from the Berjaya Vietnam Financial City project. The learned Sessions Court Judge held the defendant liable. On appeal, the High Court finds that the documentary evidence, including invoicing, contract execution, payments and tax treatment, established BVFC Ltd as the true contracting party. The principle of separate legal entities applies. The appeal is allowed, the decision of the Sessions Court is set aside and the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is dismissed. 1 the Plaintiffs’ claim is now time-barred under s 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 - the principles as enunciated in [2019] 6 MLRA 494 are distinguishable from the present facts - the Plaintiffs have failed to challenge the EoT vide judicial review - the Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming additional LAD from the Defendant as this would amount to an unjust enrichment on the part of the Plaintiffs - the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the parole evidence rule pursuant to s 91 of the Evidence Act 1950 1 This appeal is against the decision of the learned Session Court Judge, which dismissed the appellant's claim as plaintiff for losses arising from the respondent's alleged refusal and/or failure to provide timely cooperation and approval for renovations at the tenanted premises. The plaintiff claims that this act by the respondent as defendant in the court below prevented it from operating its restaurant and bar business. In this regard, the court finds that the defendant acted unreasonably by withholding consent. As a result of the findings the court has made, the court finds that the learned Sessions Court Judge's decision contains appealable errors. The appeal is therefore allowed with costs. 1 Whether the SCJ erred in law and fact by deciding to allow the following subparagraphs in paragraph 44 of the SoC – 1 (a) a declaration that the contract for the sale of P2 between D3 and P2 has been terminated by P1; 1 (b) a declaration that D3 be struck out (dibatalkan); 1 (e) the Defendants shall jointly and severally pay damages in the sum of RM342,771.00 to P1 and/ or P2 immediately; and 1 (f) interest on the said amount of damages at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until full and final settlement 1 Whether the SCJ erred in law and fact by deciding to allow the following subparagraphs in paragraph 100 of the SoC – 1 (a) D1 and D2 to return and deliver the PE as stated in Annexure A to P1 and/ or P2, at the address given by P1, within seven days from the date of judgment; 1 (b) D1 and D2 are liable to pay for the costs of delivery of the PE stated in Annexure A; 1 (d) damages in the sum of RM5,000.00 for detinue; and 1 (e) interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the sum as stated in subparagraph (b) from the date of filing of the suit until full settlement 1 Whether the SCJ erred in law and fact by deciding that the Defendants had failed, on a balance of probabilities, to prove their counterclaim against P1 1 1. The learned Sessions Judge after a full trial allowed the Plaintiff’s claim for libel against the Defendants and ordered the Defendants to pay damages to the Plaintiff. The Defendants now appeal against this decision of the learned Session Judge. 1 The brief facts 1 2. The Plaintiff’s claim stemmed from an article defaming her published using the official e mail of the 1st Defendant which was the Management Body of a residence called the Vista Kiara Condominium. The other Defendants were the committee members of the 1st Defendant. 1 3. The Plaintiff apart from being the resident at the condominium was a member of a financial task force appointed by the 1st Defendant. The defamatory statement against the Plaintiff were contained in an e mail entitled “IMPORTANT- A MUST READ FOR OWNERS OF PPVK” and published in the official email of the 1st Defendant and sent to all the residents of the condominium. 1 4. The email denoted the Plaintiff as the cause of disharmony and chaos amongst the residents of the condominium. The email also labelled the Plaintiff as carrying out activities serving her own interest. The e mail further denoted the Plaintiff as a criminally inclined. 1 4. The Defendants in their defense contended that it was the statutory duty of the Defendants to rectify and correct any issues arising which might lead to a detriment to the peaceful enjoyment of the condominium by all the residents of the condominium. 1 21. In the upshot the Court dismissed the Defendants’ appeal with a cost of RM5,000. 1 The Appellant, being the Genneva consultant, received 2,560g of respondent's gold for investment renewal in August 2012. After Genneva's collapse, the appellant provided conflicting accounts over seven years before admitting non-retrieval following the raid. The appeal was dismissed because the agency relationship was established through the appellant's admission and conduct; fiduciary duties were breached via misrepresentation; a constructive trust was properly imposed; and no limitation period applies under s 22(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 for the recovery of trust property. 1 Constructive trust - Fiduciary breach - Agency - Gold investment • Limitation Act 1953 - Trust property 1 Co-proprietors of undivided shares in a plot of land – In the absence of agreement regarding location of each co-proprietor’s share in the land, no co-proprietor can claim a specific part as his – Analogous to owning a share of water in a bucket –Partitioning of land co-owned by several co-proprietors is required for the issuance of separate individual titles stating a co-proprietor as the sole owner – Section 140(1)(a) National Land Code 1965 provides legal mechanism by agreement of all the co-proprietors to apply for partitioning of their land – Situation when some co-proprietors will neither join in, nor consent to the making of, an application for partition – Termination of co-proprietorships pursuant to s.141A for partition applications to be made to the District Land Administrator – S.145 National Land Code 1965 – High Court has power to hear their disputes between co-proprietors and issue appropriate orders to terminate co-proprietorship of land to resolve their impasse 1 The Appellant contractor was held liable for RM254,031.50 in damages for breaching its duty of care by failing to conduct utility mapping and notify the Respondent telecommunications provider before commencing excavation works. The court ruled that contractors cannot delegate their duty of care through sub-contractors and remain directly liable for failing to implement proper safeguards. Causation and quantum were established on a balance of probabilities. 1 Negligence; duty of care; construction works; vicarious liability; independent contractor; breach of duty 1 The Appellant, a former employee dismissed for habitual late attendance, brought civil tort claims alleging attempted murder through workplace poisoning, systematic oppression, and prolonged illness. His appeal is dismissed since: (1) allegations were wholly unsubstantiated; (2) the Appellant's own documents contradicted his claims, including his admission of attendance violations; (3) the dispute was essentially a wrongful dismissal claim falling within exclusive Industrial Court jurisdiction; and (4) the attempt to reframe the claim as tort to avoid Industrial Court limitations constituted abuse of process. The trial judge's credibility findings based on the Appellant's selective memory and evasiveness were upheld. 1 Wrongful dismissal – Industrial Court jurisdiction – abuse of process – domestic inquiry – credibility assessment – appellate intervention – Industrial Relations Act 1967 – employment termination – jurisdictional boundaries 1 Indemnity – Whether mandatory for the word “indemnity” to be used – Court has to construe a document as a whole and not just be bound by the label affixed – Loan was paid out by 1st Respondent to a company associated with the Appellant upon the Appellant’s request – Whatsapp messages admissible as evidence to prove promise made by the Appellant – Intention of the Appellant in promising Indemnity clear and unequivocal – No error in decision of the Sessions Court judge to allow the 1st Respondent’s claim for indemnity – The Respondents’ 2nd claim for indemnity unsustainable – Cause of action against the Appellant’s son arose in Australia – Amount that the Appellant’s son is purportedly liable to pay the Respondents not properly ascertained – No law in Malaysia making fathers liable for the liabilities of their adult sons – Appeal to be allowed in part 1 assessment of damages - Whether the SCJ made an error of law in finding that the Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of RM932,400.00 - Whether the SCJ made an error of law in awarding the sum of RM50,000.00 as exemplary damages 1 Whether the SCJ has jurisdiction to hear the taxation of the Bill of Costs - Whether the SCJ had erred in fact and law in deciding that, vide the 27.11.2017 Letter, the Appellant had requested for “a bill containing detailed items” within the meaning of proviso (a) in sub-s 121(1) of the LPA 1976 - 1 [1] This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Sessions Court (SC) that allowed the Respondent’s claim. 1 [2] This Court has allowed the appeal in part. Only prayer 1(c) is allowed pertaining to the defect inspection cost of RM3710.00. The reasons are as deliberated. 1 [3] For convenience, the parties are referred in their respective capacity at the Sessions Court. The Appellant is referred to as the Defendant and the Respondents are referred to as the Plaintiffs. 1 [4] This Court finds that the appellate intervention is warranted only on the issue of the inspection report. As such, the appeal is allowed in part only. The rest of the Order of the SCJ is affirmed. 1 It is the conclusion of this Court that the Plaintiffs’ appeal carried no merits. As such, the Plaintiffs’ appeal is dismissed. The decision of the Sessions Court is affirmed. 1 [16] As to costs, this Court deemed that a total cost of RM10,000.00 awarded to the Defendant is reasonable and it is ordered so. 1 Accordingly, the injunction granted by the Sessions Court is set aside, and MARA’s appeal is allowed. This Court rules that MARA is entitled to enforce the Performance Bond. Costs of this appeal in the sums of RM10,000 is awarded to MARA. 1 Conclusion [61] This Court finds premised on the evidence in the Appeal Records that the Respondent had failed to prove the tort for trespass and nuisance. Accordingly, the Sessions Court’s decision is set aside. The Appellant’s appeal is allowed. Costs of RM25,000.00 is awarded to the Appellant, subject to allocator, to be paid forthwith. 1 [62] Consequently, the Respondent’s cross-appeal to enhance the reliefs prayed for fall. No order as to costs. 1 Rayuan tuntutan kemalangan jalanraya, liabiliti dan kuantum - tiada kesilapan ketara - tiada kegagalan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen meneliti keterangan-keterangan - rayuan ditolak. Rayuan balas ditolak. Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan. 1 S.29 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – All civil appeals from a subordinate court shall be by way of re-hearing – High Court may make different findings based on evidence adduced at the Sessions Court – No miscarriage of justice – Agreement was agreed to also cover the earlier period for which services have been provided – Date of Agreement is relevant – Agreement must be construed using a practical and logical approach – Use of phrase “per contractual year” is not superfluous – Payment on per contractual year basis means service fees payable for a whole contractual year even if prematurely terminated 1 Rayuan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen. Mahkamah dapati tiada kesilapan ketara dan kegagalan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen meneliti keterangan. Rayuan ditolak - Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan. 1 IBG transactions expressly stated by the bank to be based on account number – Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius applicable – Other transactions deemed to be excluded from being based solely on account number – Contra proferentem rule applicable against the Bank – Other identifiers such as name of beneficiary/payee to be applicable to identify beneficiary/payee’s account – Breach by the bank in failing to instruct Agent /Intermediary bank to use beneficiary’s name as identifier – S.29 Contracts Act 1950 – Agreement which restricts enforcement of contractual rights is void – Whether exclusion clause in a bank’s remittance form contravenes S.29 Contracts Act 1950 – Invalidation of the exclusion clause – CIMB Bank Bhd v Anthony Lawrence Bourke & Anor [2019] 2 MLJ 1 applicable – Circumstances justifying application of principle of public policy 1 Subject Matter: Electricity supply dispute. Statutory recovery. Objective evaluation of evidence. This appeal concerned a statutory claim under section 38(3) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 by Tenaga Nasional Berhad for alleged meter tampering at a fish pond premises. The appeal was allowed. It was found that the Sessions Court misdirected itself by relying on inadmissible hearsay, uncorroborated e-CIBS records and unclear photographs. The plaintiff failed to prove the defendant was the registered consumer or had any connection to the inspected premises. The liability for revenue loss requires credible proof of consumer status. The Sessions Court’s judgment was set aside and the claim dismissed. 1 [1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) that allows the Respondents’ claim against the Appellant (Appeal). The Respondents also cross appeal to alter the accrual date of the interests (Cross Appeal). 1 [2] For ease of reference, the respective parties will be referred to as the Plaintiffs and Defendant as they were in the Sessions Court. 1 [3] As this Court has decided that the appeal is allowed, consequently, the cross appeal is also dismissed accordingly. 1 [4] The Appeal is allowed and the cross appeal is dismissed with costs. 1 Whether the SCJ erred in law and in fact in her findings that in the Plaintiffs’ pleadings, there is no agreement against the D1 in the 26.6.2018 Meeting - Whether the SCJ erred in law and in fact in her findings in relation to the 26.6.2018 Meeting and the Minutes of Meeting prepared by the Plaintiffs - Whether the SCJ erred in law and in fact in her findings that res judicata applies to the Plaintiffs’ claims in this suit 1 Whether the Plaintiff had pleaded constructive trust; the PA allows the Defendant to transfer the Plaintiff’s 1/3 share to the Defendant; and the validity of the transfer of the Property by the Defendant - Who bears the burden of proof of constructive trust; that the Defendant has a proprietary right to retain the Plaintiff’s share of the proceeds of sale of the Property; and on the application of s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1960 - Whether under the PA, the Defendant is the agent of the Plaintiff; the legality of the transfer of the Plaintiff’s 1/3 share by the Defendant to himself; and whether the Plaintiff has a sustainable suit - Whether the Defendant has acted unconscionably to enrich himself and in adopting the Defendant’s version of the facts and documentary evidence 1 This is an appeal by the Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (KPHDN) against the Deciding Order of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) dated 25.04.2022. 1 On 29.04.2025, after considering all the cause papers and the respective written submissions of the parties on a balance of probabilities, I find that the SCIT did not misdirect herself on the facts and the law, and I see no reason to disturb her findings. 1 In the circumstances, L1 is dismissed with no order for costs. 1 Appeal by the KPDN against the Deciding Order of the SCIT dated 28.04.2022. Profound’s application for relief over a supposed error or mistake in the YA 2009 - 2011, dated 20.03.2013, under s.131 ITA. 1 Appeal by Profound against part of the SCIT panel of three's decision that had unanimously and on its motion denied Profound's appeal for YA 2011 over a supposed error or mistake in its tax submission. 1 On 03.07.2025, I find: The DGIR’s Appeal against the decision of the SCIT is allowed and Profound’s Appeal against the decision of the SCIT is dismissed. 1 This is an appeal by the Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (DGIR) against the Deciding Order of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) dated 20.01.2023, that favored the respondent’s (Exceptional Landmarks) appeal under section 99 of the ITA 1967 (Right of Appeal) against the DGIR Notice of Additional Assessment (27.11.2017) for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2014. 1 2. I find that the SCIT has not misdirected herself on the facts and the law. In the circumstances, I see no reason to disturb her findings in the SCIT Deciding Order. The DGIR’s appeal is dismissed with costs. 1 Appeal from decision from Special Commissioner of Income Tax-tax treatment to be given in respect of income received by person on secondment overseas-whether attracts application of s.13(2)(c) of Income Tax Act-whether income received on secondment deemed to have been received from Malaysia-whether overseas assignment is incidental to employment in Malaysia-application of Public Ruling No. 1/2011-7 factors to be considered cumulatively-approach to be taken by the court in an appeal from the SCIT’s decision. 1 whether the written opinions of the two assessors in a Land Reference under section 40D of the Land Acquisition Act 1960-must be given to parties for counsel to submit on their contents before the High Court delivers its decision-The doctrine of cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos-land owners have the rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also the air above and the ground below-the ad coelum doctrine-[14] This right of ownership over land has been restricted by section 44 of the National Land Code, which provides that the landowner shall be entitled to “the exclusive use and enjoyment of so much of the column of airspace above the surface of the land, and so much of the land below the surface, as is reasonably necessary to the lawful use and enjoyment of the land”-The Federal Constitution guarantees a person to a right to property-Article 13 of the Federal Constitution-“(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law-(2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.”-the land acquisition process and procedure in Malaysia-must be strictly adhered to-an aggrieved party has a legal right to object to the award of the land administrator by way of a land reference to the High Court provided-Land Reference Court-40D of the LAA to be ultra vires the Federal Constitution-Arahan Amalan Hakim Besar Malaya Bil. 1 Tahun 2017-whether the declaration of law-Sejati has retrospective effect or is only prospectively effective from its decision-The written opinions of the two assessors in a Land Reference under section 40D of the LAA must be made available to parties for counsel to submit on their contents before the High Court delivers decision on the Land Reference 1 Land acquisition compensation dispute. This land reference concerned the acquisition of a low-cost apartment under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The applicant challenged the adequacy of compensation awarded. The Court upheld the Land Administrator’s award of RM241,960.00 based on the comparison method, rejecting the applicant’s speculative valuation using the residual method. The Court found that the award complied with the principle of equivalence and adequately reflected market value and reasonable ancillary claims. The decision affirms that valuation must be based on actual market evidence, not unproven redevelopment potential. 1 (a) the Respondent’s decision is ultra vires when it was wrongly decided that the setback for the Applicant’s building is not necessary; 1 (b) the Respondent failed to consider – 1 (i) that the Applicant’s building is beside the road and it is not safe for their employees, customers and visitors; 1 (ii) that the Applicant will be held responsible for failing to provide a safe place to work and safe place for business by not providing a setback for the building; 1 (iii) the fact that the road was extended up to the boundary of the Applicant’s building where the Applicant had to move the building to ensure that the premises are safe for its customers and employees; 1 (iv) the provision of Acts such as occupier's liabilities or the tort of negligence under tort law and/ or the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 when the Applicant’s building is beside the road without a setback of 10 feet as required under the Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s (‘DBKL’) Guidelines; and 1 (v) that the acquisition of part of the Land pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(b) of the LAA 1960 was in fact for the benefit of PISB where the selling price of the units at Pavillion Embassy ranges from RM2.5 million to RM20 million each; and 1 (c) the Respondent failed to compensate for – 1 (i) the demolition and re-construction of the building after the setback of the building as provided in the DBKL’s Guidelines, including loss of business during the construction works; 1 (ii) concrete works, road premix and floor finishing constructed by the Applicant for the parking space on the land acquired; and 1 (iii) the loss of parking space for the Applicant’s business located on part of the Land which was acquired for the remaining period of the tenancy. 1 [1] Prosiding rujukan tanah ini dibawa oleh Zainab Binti Alias (Pemohon) yang merupakan Pemilik berdaftar bagi hartanah yang terkandung di Lot 2184, Seksyen 41, Pajakan Negeri 21229 Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (Tanah Dijadualkan). 1 [2] Jurunilai Responden menyatakan bahawa penilaian Pemohon adalah tidak tepat kerana lokasi tanah perbandingan yang jauh dari lokasi tanah terjadual dan mempunyai ciri perundangan yang berbeza. Ini dipersetujui kedua-dua Pengapit. Oleh itu, berdasarkan dapatan ini dan laporan Pengapit, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa nilaian Penilai Kerajaan adalah paling tepat dan sesuai untuk penentuan pampasan berbanding Penilai Swasta/Pemohon. 1 [3] Adalah boleh disimpulkan dan berdasarkan Laporan Penilaian Kerajaan dan Laporan Pengapit-Pengapit bahawa, adalah secara munasabah harga yang dinyatakan oleh Penilai Kerajaan lebih hampir menurut konsep ‘willing seller willing buyer’. 1 [4] Kes rujukan tanah ini adalah ditolak. 1 Land acquisition – Compensation – Beneficial owners – Intervention – Bare trustee – Indefeasibility of title – Fraud – Illegality – Setting aside order – Functus officio – Locus standi – Order 15 Rule 6(2) ROC – Section 340 NLC – Section 16 LAA – Article 13 Federal Constitution 1 Land acquisition compensation dispute. This land reference concerned the acquisition of a low-cost apartment under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The applicant challenged the adequacy of compensation awarded. The Court upheld the Land Administrator’s award of RM244,460.00 based on the comparison method, rejecting the applicant’s speculative valuation using the residual method. The Court found that the award complied with the principle of equivalence and adequately reflected market value and reasonable ancillary claims. The decision affirms that valuation must be based on actual market evidence, not unproven redevelopment potential. 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal – Industrial Court – Probationer – Unsatisfactory performance – Termination – m Whether termination with or without just cause and excuse Findings of fact – Plainly wrong test – Appellate interference 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial Review – Industrial Court – Dismissal – Misconduct of insubordination and/or gross negligence – Employee still suffering from the after effects of being a Category 5 COVID-19 patient – Failure to turn up for work as instructed – No domestic inquiry held – Reason for termination – Whether termination bona fide or mala fide. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Application to strike out appeal – Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal filed out of time – Date of service on AR Registered card – Service disputed – Whether proof of service rebutted – Whether appeal defective and incompetent – Rules of Court O. 55. 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal – Industrial Court – Forced resignation or voluntary resignation – Principle of forced resignation – Intention to resign – Request to resign – Whether there was a negotiation of terms to resign – Whether cause existing at the time of tendering the letter of resignation – Poor performance – Sabotage 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal – Industrial Court – Forced resignation or voluntary resignation – Principle of forced resignation – Whether cause existing at time of tendering letter of resignation – Principles of appellate intervention – Analysis of evidence by the Industrial Court – Whether appellate intervention justified 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Industrial Court – Fixed term contract – Termination of employment – Poor Performance –Appeal – Remedy – Back wages – Post-dismissal earnings –Factors to be considered – Paragraphs 1, 3, and 5 of the Second Schedule to the Industrial Relations Act 1967. 1 1. An appeal (L1) lodged by the appellant against my decision in dismissing their challenge of IC Interim Award No.2381 dated 19.12.2023. 2. The IC Interim Award dismissed the appellant’s interlocutory application dated 13.09.2022 to strike out the Industrial Court Claim (IC Claim) under section 29(fa) Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA) filed by the respondent Nazira Binti Nasir against AFI grounded on wrongful employment dismissal. 3. On 07.01.2025, after duly perusing the cause papers and the parties' respective submissions on the balance of probabilities, I find there is no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal against interlocutory decision – Interlocutory decision made by Industrial Court – Appeal against decision to High Court – Application for stay of proceedings before Industrial Court pending disposal of appeal – Test for stay of proceedings – Sections 29(c) and (g), 33C of Industrial Relations Act 1967. 1 Claimant issued transfer order from Terengganu to Labuan-he appealed but did not turn up at the station he was to report for duty-Company released him from employment- Industrial Court found Claimant to be have been dismissed without just cause and excuse-prior to transfer order, Claimant was informed on several occasions of the intention to transfer him due to slow down in the operations in Terengganu resulting from Covid-19 situation -whether transfer is a management prerogative-whether the Claimant is entitled to be informed as to the outcome of the appeal before the transfer order takes effect-whether issuance of release from employment the day after Claimant failed to report for duty is evidence of lack of bona fides-whether Claimant ought to have been issued a show cause to give him a right to be heard-breach serious enough to dispense with show cause-no useful purpose would be served with issuance of show cause. 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal - Dismissal - Industrial Court - Whether claimant 'workman' within meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. Test - Control Test - Integrated test - Whether test proven 1 1. The appellants filed this Notice of Appeal (L.1) to challenge the interim award of the Industrial Court Award No 471 of 2024 dated 01.04.2024 (IC Interim Award) allowing the Appellants to be joined as parties to the respondent’s constructive dismissal case at the Industrial Court. 1 2. On 18.02.2025, after duly perusing the cause papers and the parties' respective submissions on the balance of probabilities, I find no merit in the appeal. I dismissed it with costs of RM5,000.00 awarded to the respondent. 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal – Industrial Court – Dismissal – Negligent discharge of duties – Failure to comply with Standard Operating Procedures – Whether negligent conduct proven – Finding of facts 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal – Industrial Court – Dismissal – Negligent discharge of duties – Failure to comply with Standard Operating Procedures – Whether negligent conduct proven – Whether evidence at domestic inquiry relevant – Mala fide and victimisation 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal – Industrial Court – Domestic inquiry – Appeal Committee – Demotion – Constructive dismissal – Reason for constructive dismissal at the time of walking out of the employment – Whether other reasons can be considered – Whether pre-requisites of constructive dismissal proven – Breach of natural justice at domestic inquiry and appeal committee hearing – Whether a fundamental breach of the contract 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Industrial Court – Termination – Probationer – Reason for termination – Whether employee confirmed and permanent employee – Termination due to poor performance – Whether poor performance proved 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal – Industrial Court – Misconduct – Theft – Whether theft proven – Findings of fact – Plainly wrong test – Appellate interference – Principles. 1 LEGAL PROFESSION: Advocates and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Complaint to Disciplinary Board – Complainant did not appear – Function of the Disciplinary Committee – Function of the Disciplinary Board – No inquiry – Whether finding of guilty or not guilty can be made – Breach of the right to be heard – Whether proven beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal to High Court – Appellate function of High Court – Sections 100, 103D, 103E of Legal Profession Act 1976 – Rules 16, 18(5)(b), 18(7) and 24 Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017 1 LEGAL PROFESSION: Advocates and solicitors – Legal fees – Cause of action under Section 119(1) read with Section 116 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 – Whether written agreement condition precedent – Application to strike out – Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 LEGAL PROFESSION: Advocates and solicitors – Complaint to Disciplinary Board – Complaint against two advocates and solicitors – Complaint withdrawn against one advocate and solicitor – Disciplinary Committee appointed – Second advocate and solicitor alleges that complaint was also withdrawn – Refusal of Disciplinary Board to refer to Bar Council – Originating summons filed seeking remedy – Abuse of the process of the court – Internal avenue not exhausted – Sections 100, 103E and 103EA of the Legal Profession Act 1976 – Rules 8 and 18(3) of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017 1 Whether the 10 Invoices annexed as Annexure A to the O.S. are gross sum bills - Whether the Plaintiff is out of time to seek taxation under the LPA 1976 - Whether the Court retains the discretion in its inherent jurisdiction to order taxation regardless of the fact that it was time-barred - Whether in view of sub-s 121(2) of the LPA 1976, the issue of taxation applies to D2 1 [1] The Bar Council (BC) filed an application (L.16) for leave to intervene in this proceeding under section 103E (6) of the Legal Profession Act, 1957 and/or O.15 r.6 (2) (b) Rules of Court, 2012 and the respondent has no objection to this application. [2] It is settled law that the BC has the right to intervene at any stage of an appeal against a decision of the Disciplinary Board. [3] On 06.05.2025, after reviewing the cause papers and submissions of the counsels, I find there is merit in L.16 and allowed it with no order as to costs. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of Court – Breach of court order – Prima facie contempt of court established and upheld on appeal – Whether contemnor interfered with administration of justice – Whether charge of contempt against contemnors proved beyond reasonable doubt – Whether must show means of contemnor – Whether custodial sentence appropriate 1 LEGAL PROFESSION: Advocates and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Complaint to Disciplinary Board – Disciplinary Board of the view matter can be dealt with summarily. The Disciplinary Board dismissed the complaint – Appeal – Complainant pending appeal application, an abuse of the process of the court - Sections 99, 100, and 103E, of Legal Profession Act 1976 – Rules 18 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. 1 This Judgement contains the Court's decision on the Plaintiff claims for the validity of the termination of the construction contract and the Defendant's counterclaims for the monetary claims and relief. 1 This is a judgement on the application by the 2nd Defendant to strike out the Plaintiff's claim for direct payment to be made to the Plaintiff by a Letter of Award dated 7.3.2023. 1 Whether the Plaintiff or Defendant who makes actual decision on the appointment and termination of NSC - Whether the Plaintiff or Defendant is culpable for the delay(s) in the Project, inter alia, the delays caused by – (i) NSC; (ii) design defects; and (iii) issuance of CMGD - Whether the Defendant had wrongly issued the CNC - Whether the CPC dated 10.10.2019 was issued late to the Plaintiff in view that Notice of Completion of Practical Works was given on 7.6.2019 - Whether the Defendant had wrongly imposed LAD and back-charges on the Plaintiff - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to its claims in this proceeding 1 - for interim injunctive relief pending the disposal of the main suit. The Plaintiff seeks wide-ranging interim orders against three Defendants: (a) the First and Second Defendants, being unknown persons who administer Telegram channels styled Edisi Siasat and Edisi Khas; and (b) the Third Defendant, Telegram Messenger Inc., is an internet messaging service provider licensed under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA 1998”). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the publication and dissemination of false, malicious, and offensive content. Reliefs prayed for - (a) A mandatory injunction compelling all the Defendants to immediately remove all false, menacing and offensive contents cited as Impugned Contents from the Impugned Channels; (b) A prohibitory injunction restraining all the Defendants and/or their agents, servants and associates from further uttering, writing, disseminating or publishing, republishing, or distributing the Impugned Contents or words to the effect or similar or in relation to the Impugned Contents; (c) A mandatory injunction directing the Third Defendant to close the Impugned Channels; (d) A mandatory injunction directing the Third Defendant to close similar or new channels that utter, write, disseminate or publish, republish, or distribute the Impugned Contents or words to the effect or similar or in relation to the Impugned Contents; (e) A mandatory injunction compelling the Third Defendant to disclose all available information about the First and Second Defendants. 1 The Court orders as follows: (a) The Plaintiff is granted prohibitory injunctions restraining the Defendants from continuing to publish, disseminate, or republish the specific Impugned Contents identified in the Statement of Claim. (b) The Plaintiff’s prayers for mandatory injunctions compelling closure of the Impugned Channels, closure of any future channels, and disclosure of the administrator details are refused at this stage, without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to pursue such relief at trial. 1 No specific financial losses were shown by the Plaintiff during trial. As special damages must be proven, this Court must consider the evidence adduced. Substantial monetary awards require concrete evidence. Due to the absence of evidence to show specific financial losses, this Court does not allow this prayer for special damages due to the negligence of the Defendants.\ Costs of this trial in the amount of RM20,000.00 subject to allocateurallocator fee. The Defendants are ordered to pay the Plaintiff the said amount for costs. 1 Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 – Right to assemble and march peacefully – Officer-in-charge of Police District imposed total prohibition of march – Whether ultra vires – Whether a violation of rights under the Federal Constitution – Tort of false imprisonment not proven – False imprisonment is any total restraint of the liberty of the person – Partial restriction of freedom of movement is not an imprisonment – Conditions that may be imposed by OCPD – The OCPD should have facilitated the march by controlling traffic, preventing nuisance and ensuring the safety of the participants – Misinterpretation of law due to lack of time for OCPD to seek advice – Did not amount to tort of misfeasance in public office – Nominal damages to be awarded for case of public interest – Each party is to bear own costs 1 Negligence – medical negligence - It is not uncommon to see medical negligence cases involving private hospitals in Court and in the law reports and this Court will not take judicial notice that private hospitals are necessarily better given the huge volume of patients the Government hospitals serve. Without any empirical evidence that private medical institutions are necessarily better, to tar Government hospitals which serve hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people as a whole is unacceptable. 1 Federal Constitution – the words “be defended” in Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution should not be read restrictively to mean than an Advocate & Solicitor can only defend his or her client in Court or before a tribunal Legal profession – an Advocate & Solicitor should be able to question any searches, raids or seizures which are illegal and ultra vires the powers under which an enforcement agency seek to act False imprisonment and misfeasance in public duty– to subject an Advocate & Solicitor to detention and arrest when the Advocate & Solicitor is fearlessly discharging her duty to her client amounts to false imprisonment and misfeasance in public duty 1 [1] Ini merupakan Permohonan Plaintif di bawah Aturan 19 Kaedah 7 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KM 2012) dibaca bersama Aturan 91 Kaedah 4 KM 2012 (Lampiran 24) atas keingkaran pliding oleh Defendan Keempat dan Kelima untuk memfailkan Pembelaan terhadap Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif. 1 [2] Plaintif Pertama adalah tuanpunya berdaftar 319/1728 bahagian hartanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 2473 dalam Geran Mukim 648 Mukim Setapak, Tempat 4 ¾ Mile Gombak Road Daerah Kuala Lumpur dan tinggal di dalam sebuah rumah yang beralamat Lot 2473 Kg Padang Balang, Sentul 51100 Kuala Lumpur beserta beberapa pintu rumah sewa (Hartanah), sebelum pindahmilik Hartanah itu ke atas nama Defendan pertama (D1) dalam Perserahan 5843/2015 pada 18-06-2015 yang didaftarkan oleh Defendan ke-4 (D4) dan Defendan ke-5 (D5). 1 [3] Tambahan tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif ini perlu diselesaikan terlebih dahulu kerana ianya melibatkan isu frod dan konspirasi. 1 [4] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa sekiranya Lampiran 24 dibenarkan, ianya akan menjadi penghakiman muktamad ke atas D4 dan D5 yang mana kesannya adalah bertentangan dengan kedudukan D4 dan D5 selaku pihak yang akan melaksanakan tugas statutori yang hanya akan berlaku setelah mahkamah ini memutuskan berkaitan isu frod dan konspirasi yang dikatakan Plaintif-plaintif dalam tuntutannya ke atas D1, 2 dan 3. 1 [5] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Lampiran 24 ditolak dengan kos. 1 In any event, for the ad-interim injunction, the Plaintiffs did not satisfy this Court that it was just to grant it. Therefore, this Court dismissed the oral application for an ad-interim injunction. Costs in the cause. The hearing of Enc 6 for the Plaintiffs’ interim injunction would in all likelihood be heard and disposed of on 9.6.2025 before the Plaintiffs’ appeal against this Court’s dismissal of the ad-interim injunction is called before the Court of Appeal. 1 Perbicaraan penuh. Tuntutan pemakaian kontrak dan pelanjutan tempoh kontrak - tuntutan dibenarkan. Ganti rugi Nominal RM100,000.00 1 [1] Ini merupakan Permohonan Defendan-defendan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) atau (d) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012) untuk membatalkan Writ Saman dan Penyataan Tuntutan Plaintif (Lampiran 10). Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan Lampiran 10 dan berikut adalah alasan-alasan Mahkamah ini atas keputusan tersebut. 1 [2] Merujuk kepada Affidavit Sokongan Defendan yang diikrarkan pada 12.09.2024, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa Surat-surat Sulit tersebut merupakan surat dalaman untuk komunikasi antara kementerian dan bukan bertujuan untuk edaran kepada Plaintif. Selain itu, tiada surat bertarikh 20.09.2022 seperti yang diplidkan Plaintif. 1 [3] Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan-Defendan bahawa D1 dan D2 bukanlah merupakan satu entiti undang-undang yang sah dan tidak boleh menyaman atau di saman. Undang-undang adalah mantap berkaitan perkara ini 1 [4] Berdasarkan perkara di atas, Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan-defendan bahawa tuntutan ini adalah mengaibkan, remeh serta menyusahkan dan merupakan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Lampiran 10 dibenarkan dengan kos. Tuntutan Plaintif adalah dibatalkan. 1 Security for Costs Bankruptcy Judicial Discretion Director General of Insolvency Financial Incapacity Burden of Proof Prima Facie Defence Multiple Litigation Rules of Court 2012 Inherent Jurisdiction 1 This Court’s Orders [102] The following are the orders of this Court: (i) It is hereby declared that the Power of Attorney dated 11.7.2018, registered at the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur under Registration No: WA-SKW-32-08/2018 on 15.8.2018, is invalid, null, and void. 1 (ii) It is hereby declared that the transfer of ownership of the ½ share in the property known as 44, Lorong Setiajasa 1, Bukit Damansara, 50490 Kuala Lumpur, Grant No. 23188, Lot 48810, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, from Rachel Alcantara a/p Peter Alcantara (the Deceased) to the 1st Defendant (vide Form 14A) is invalid, null, and void. 1 (iii) The Registrar of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur is hereby ordered and directed to sign the transfer of ownership form (Form 14A) for the ½ share in the said property from the name of the 1st Defendant back to the Estate of Rachel Alcantara a/p Peter Alcantara or as the Plaintiff, being the Administrator, directs. 1 (iv) The 1st Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of RM3,000.00 per month as rental value of the Damansara Property from 9.7.2019 until the date of transfer back to the estate is completed. 1 (v) The 1st Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff exemplary damages in the sum of RM42,000.00. 1 (vi) Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the rental sum (Order 4 above) from 9.7.2019 until full settlement. 1 (vii) The 1st Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's costs of this civil suit in the sum of RM50,000, subject to allocator. 1 (viii) Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to apply for further directions or consequential orders as may be necessary to give effect to this judgment. 1 [1] This is an application made by the Defendants pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) to strike out and/or dismiss the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. 1 [2] Defendants are not the proper parties to be sued in this claim, hence considered as frivolous and vexatious. Furthermore, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead in particularity, the specific date or period when the alleged cause of action is said to have accrued. 1 [3] Based on the above deliberations, Enclosure 11 is allowed with costs. 1 1. The Plaintiff is a registered society under the Societies Act 1966. 2. P alleged that D1 and D2 had conspired to defame and injure P, and breach of public duty by D3, D4 and D5 in failing to act in retracting the impugned open letter of 20.03.2018, that allegedly contained adverse content on the position of P as a martial arts body promoting Taekwondo. 3. On 24.04.2025, after full trial, I find P has failed to prove it case and dismissed with cost, D1’s counterclaim against P was also dismissed with costs. 1 Pregnancy-induced hypertension – CTG reading showed baby in distress – Delay in the Decision-to Delivery-Interval to complete Caesarean surgery to deliver baby – Whether 30 minutes guideline is applicable – Delay probably caused baby to suffer severe irreversible brain damage – Cerebral Palsy – Finding of professional medical negligence – Gross Motor Function Classification System (“GMFCS”) is applicable to assess life expectancy – Plaintiff classified in Level 5 of GMFCS – Tube-fed and unable to lift head in prone position – Experts’ Reports on life expectancy – Study by Brooks et al. relevant for assessment of life expectancy – Expert report unsupported by evidence to be rejected – Life expectancy to be assessed based on current age – No basis to extrapolate – Award for Future General Damages based on multiplier – No evidence to support claim for Aggravated Damages – Future General Damages is early upfront payment for future expenses – No basis for interest to run from date earlier than judgment date. 1 Sama ada terdapat kecuaian dan/ atau perlanggaran kewajipan (“breach of duty”) oleh pihak Defendan-Defendan dalam kes ini sebagaimana yang telah diplidkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif dalam perenggan 22 PT - Sama ada terdapat keingkaran tanggungjawab statutori (“breach of statutory duty”) menurut Akta Penjara 1955 dan Peraturan-Peraturan Penjara 2000 oleh Defendan-Defendan dalam kes ini sebagaimana yang telah diplidkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif dalam perenggan 23 PT 1 Penamatan kontrak dan liabiliti. Perintah larangan di bawah Akta Orang Asli 1954. Mahkamah Tinggi menolak tuntutan plaintif terhadap agensi kerajaan atas dakwaan penamatan tidak sah pelantikan mengurus ladang sawit di tanah rizab Orang Asli. Mahkamah memutuskan plaintif tidak pernah dilantik secara langsung oleh defendan pertama sebagai ejen dan perjanjian kerjasama hanya mengikat plaintif dan defendan keempat. Notis pembatalan dan perintah larangan oleh defendan-defendan adalah sah menurut undang-undang. Tiada hubungan kontraktual dibuktikan dan tuntutan ganti rugi khas serta kehilangan keuntungan juga gagal disokong dengan bukti yang mencukupi. 1 Even if the Plaintiff had established its claims (which it has not), the entire action is statute-barred under both the Limitation Act 1953 and the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948. Accordingly, this Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claim in its entirety with the reasonable costs of RM80,000. 1 The plaintiff complains that he suffered catastrophic injuries at birth in Hospital Kuala Lumpur. It is his case that he has since been diagnosed with hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy with hemidystonia resulting in poor function of his right upper and lower limbs due to dystonic movements, mild dysarthria of speech, pes planus with shortening of the right leg, impairments in gait, left knee injury as a result of overuse of the left leg, and habitual shoulder dislocation. In this regard, the court finds that the defendants were negligent in failing to perform an urgent caesarean section despite the plaintiff's mother's emergency. As a result, the plaintiff suffered injuries. Specifically, the plaintiff unnecessarily suffered the adverse effects of a severe cord prolapse due to the doctors' lack of clinical management skills. 1 This judgment dismisses a tort action by 810 plaintiffs against 18 defendants arising from a September 2020 water disruption in Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur. The High Court determined the threshold issue of locus standi after the first plaintiff (PW-1), a former Member of Parliament, testified as sole witness. The Court held this was a private law tort action requiring strict standing requirements, not public interest litigation. PW-1 lacked personal standing, having resided outside the affected area with no personal water disruption. The action failed as a representative proceeding under Order 15 Rule 12 ROC 2012, lacked endorsement under Order 6 Rule 2(1)(b) and proper authorization. The remaining 809 plaintiffs adduced no evidence and defects emerged where 103 plaintiffs with non-existent identity card numbers, 8 deceased plaintiffs, 3 undischarged bankrupts without DGI sanction, and 8 residing outside the affected area. PW-1 admitted inability to prove any claim and lacked written authorisation from the plaintiffs. 1 Locus standi; representative action; tort; private law standing; Order 15 Rule 12; Order 6 Rule 2(1)(b); costs 1 [1] This is the Plaintiff’s Application for Discovery (Enclosure 14) under Order 24 Rule 3 and/or Rule 7 and/or Order 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012). 1 [2] This Court allows Enclosure 14 in part, by allowing only the valuation report dated 19.05.2020 pertaining to a land held under HSD 3457, PT 457, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor (Land) but not Minutes of the Cabinet meeting. The reasons are as deliberated. 1 [3] Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the valuation report is adequate in regards to the issue pertaining to the purchase price and the reason for the revaluation of the Land. 1 [4] After a thorough and careful evaluation of all the evidence presented, including the written and oral submissions by learned Counsels, this Court allows Enclosure 14 in part by allowing only the Valuation Report dated 19.05.2020. 1 Permohonan di bawah A 14A Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 oleh Plaintif-plaintif adalah untuk penentukan had tanggungjawab polis dalam penguatkuasaan imigresen. Plaintif menuntut RM1.6 juta daripada polis dan kerajaan kerana kegagalan mengusir penipu warganegara Nigeria selepas sabitan di bawah Akta Imigresen 1959. Mahkamah Tinggi menolak semua tuntutan, memutuskan bahawa pengusiran memerlukan perintah khusus Ketua Pengarah Imigresen, polis hanya mempunyai kuasa budi bicara dalam perkara imigresen, dan tiada kewajipan berjaga-jaga wujud untuk pemulihan kerugian kewangan. Kes ini menegaskan prinsip bahawa mangsa jenayah tidak boleh mengalihkan liabiliti kepada pihak berkuasa awam melalui kegagalan prosedur administratif. ________________________________________ KATA KUNCI 1 • Akta Imigresen 1959 • Akta Polis 1967 • Kewajipan statutori • Pengusiran mandatori • Misfeasans dalam jawatan awam • Kewajipan berjaga-jaga • Liabiliti vikarius • Aturan 14A KMT 2012 1 Accordingly. D1’s application to recuse me is dismissed. Costs of RM20,000 is ordered to be paid to the Plaintiff subject to allocator. All directions for trial must be complied with to ensure the smooth hearing of the case. I will hear and determine all issues pleaded by all parties then. 1 Enclosure 1. This is an unfortunate case of a family who are American-Singaporean expatriates who had intended to set up home in Malaysia via the programme known as Malaysia My Second Home also known as MM2H promoted by the Malaysian Tourism Authority and the Immigration Department of Malaysia, to allow foreigners to stay in Malaysia. Through no fault of their own, this family were put through amongst others much hassle and inconvenience as a result of a luxurious condominium they had purchased which they had intended to call their home in Malaysia. The Plaintiffs herein, who are husband and wife had purchased the said luxurious condo which is known as Agile Mont Kiara project (“Project”) from the Defendant, Agile PJD Development Sdn Bhd, who is the developer of the Project. 1 Enclosure 1. In the matter now before this Court, a dispute had previously arisen from one of the construction contracts involving Lembaga Getah Malaysia, a body corporate established under the Malaysian Rubber Board (Incorporation) Act 1996, who is the 1st Defendant herein (“LGM”) with regards a development in Sungai Buloh which was undertaken on a freehold land forming part of Lot 481 and Lot 2047, Mukim Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan, measuring approximately 535 acres in total (hereinafter referred to as “the LGM land”). LGM had by way of a “Project Delivery Partner Agreement” dated 9-12-2013 (“PDP Agreement”) entered into an agreement with KLIA Associates Sdn Bhd and KLIA Consultancy Services Sdn Bhd, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively, as its project delivery partner, with regards the project known as "Kerja-kerja Pembangunan Tanah Lembaga Getah Malaysia (LGM) Di Atas Sebahagian Lot 481 dan Lot 2047, Mukim Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan” (“the Project”) on the said LGM Land. 1 This case concerns claims and counterclaims arising from the termination of subcontracts for structural steel works in a LRT project. The main legal issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover sums paid as advance payments, and whether the defendant could claim payment or losses not expressly provided for under the contracts. The Court held that the parties were bound by the terms of the operative contracts, rejected claims not contractually supported, and allowed only proven additional works. Judgment was therefore entered substantially in favour of the plaintiff. 1 This decision concerns the 2nd Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim against it. The Plaintiff’s action against the second defendant contractor arose from disputes over the issuance of a Certificate of Practical Completion (“CPC”) for a construction project, following a prior arbitration that was settled by a consent award. The key legal issue was whether the plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata and the Arbitration Act 2005. The Court held that the settlement agreement, consent award and High Court order constituted a full and final resolution with the effect of an award on the merits, rendering the action an abuse of process, and accordingly struck out the claim against the second defendant. 1 This case concerns whether sections 13 and 37 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) give an adjudication decision finality so as to bar the Court from determining the same payment dispute. The Court held that an adjudication decision has only temporary finality, and litigation or arbitration will ultimately determine the dispute with full finality. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to determine afresh the parties’ rights concerning the nine invoices, rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on an alleged oral agreement, and allowed the defendant’s counterclaim. 1 Enclosure 72. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory application – Mareva injunction – Ex parte Mareva order – Inter partes hearing – Application to continue Mareva injunction – Application to set aside ex parte Mareva order – Discretion of court – Proportionality of relief – Status quo preservation 1 INJUNCTION: Mareva injunction – Freezing of bank accounts – Designated escrow / project account – Risk of dissipation of assets- Nature and purpose – Exceptional and drastic remedy – Not a form of security – Protection against dissipation of assets – Limited Mareva injunction – Whether partial discharge of ex parte order is permissible at inter parte hearing 1 This Judgement contains the Court's decision on the main issue where an arbitration agreement between the parties requires as a first step for dispute between them to be referred to a particular individual in the contract whether the omission to name or identify that individual renders the arbitration agreement from being incapable of being performed. 1 Enclosure 1. Pursuant to a Letter of Award dated 19.04.2019 (Ref: LLCISB/EDT3E/YYSB/LOA/19-04-2019) (“LA”), the Defendant had appointed the Plaintiff as the Sub-subcontractor to provide Earthwork service (Earthwork Section 3.3 from Ch 680.000 to Ch 690.150) (“Works”) for a Project known as “Electrified Double Track Gemas to Johor Bahru Section 3 – Civil Works – Site Clearance and Embankment Earthwork With All Associated Works” (“Project”) with the Contract sum awarded being RM22,170,296.37 (“Contract Sum”). 1 This case concerns an application for leave under Order 52 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 to commence committal proceedings for contempt against the second defendant, premised on alleged false statements on oath and interference with the administration of justice. The key issue was whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of contempt and complied with the procedural requirements of Order 52 rule 3(2). The court held that the statement failed to sufficiently particularise the alleged contempt and that the truth or falsity of the impugned affidavits could not be determined without venturing into matters reserved for trial. Accordingly, leave was refused and the application dismissed. 1 Enclosure 1. Plaintif dalam kes ini mendakwa bahawa Defendan Pertama, Mohd Kushari bin Kamisan (“Defendan Pertama”) yang juga saksi unggul Defendan Pertama dalam kes ini, kononnya melalui hubungan yang terbina dengan pihak JKR, telah berjaya mendapatkan projek tersebut di mana Defendan Pertama merupakan individu yang bertanggungjawab memasukkan nama syarikat Defendan Kedua, EMF Energy Sdn Bhd (“Defendan Kedua”) untuk diawadkan projek tersebut yang mana pada akhirnya syarikat Defendan Kedua dilantik sebagai kontraktor utama. 1 Interlocutory application. Section 10 Arbitration Act, 2005. Stay of proceeding pending arbitration. Arbitration clause. Construction law. Stay of proceeding allowed. 1 Enclosure 1. The Defendant, CRCC Malaysia Berhad (“Defendant”), was appointed as the sub-contractor to carry out works in relation to the Construction and Completion of Guideway, Stations, Park and Ride, Ancillary Buildings and Other Associated Works for Package GS06 for Light Rail Transit Line 3 (LRT 3) from Bandar Utama to Johan Setia (“Project”) by Rahimkon Sdn Bhd (“Employer”). 1 The claims and counterclaims between Plaintiff and Defendant involve unlawful termination of the contract, consequential loss and damage, and loss and damage incurred in having to engage a third party contractor. 1 Plaintiff's action against the Defendant is for damages and other relief of civil and structural engineering consultant for the project while the Defendant counterclaimed for compensation under section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 and for other relief. 1 Kandungan 15 & 17. Pihak Defendan Pertama telah melalui kandungan 15 (Kandungan 15), memohon untuk membatalkan Writ dan Penyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 19.7.2024 terhadap Defendan Pertama mengikut Aturan 18Kaedah 19 (1)(a), dan/atau (b), dan/atau (c) dan/atau (d) Kaedah -Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan untuk perkara yang sama terhadap Defendan Kedua dalam kandungan 17 (Kandungan 17). 1 Enclosure 14. Pursuant to Enclosure 14 (Enclosure 14), the Plaintiff had applied to this Court under Order 15 rule 6(2) and (8) and Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim to include one Ahmad Zaki Resources Berhad (“AZRB”) as the 2nd Defendant herein. 1 Construction law. Preliminary Issue and Stay Application. Companies Act 2016. Stay not allowed. Action struck out. 1 Sama ada sebarang kelewatan atau penangguhan tarikh masuk tapak adalah berpunca daripada kegagalan D2 untuk mendapatkan KM daripada pihak berkuasa tempatan - Sama ada EoT dan tarikh siap baharu telah diberikan oleh D2 bagi penangguhan tarikh masuk tapak - Sama ada kelewatan kerja Plaintif di tapak adalah disebabkan oleh kerja-kerja tanah yang perlu dilakukan oleh Plaintif - Sama ada kerja-kerja tanah yang terlibat adalah berpunca daripada kesilapan D2 dalam menentukan lokasi pembuangan tanah - Sama ada EoT telah diberikan oleh D2 bagi kerja-kerja tanah tersebut - Sama ada Plaintif berhak untuk menuntut pengurangan Bayaran Kerja Tanah berjumlah RM2,992,772.00 - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan oleh D2 dalam meluluskan Perakuan Kelambatan dan Lanjutan Masa bagi Projek tersebut. Jika “YA”, sama ada kelewatan tersebut telah menjejaskan perlaksanaan kerja di bawah Kontrak tersebut - Sama ada D2 telah gagal atau ingkar untuk membuat bayaran progresif mengikut Perakuan Interim yang dikeluarkan oleh Jurukur Bahan bagi Projek tersebut - Jika pembayaran telah dibuat, sama ada pembayaran adalah lewat iaitu melebihi tempoh 30 hari setelah Perakuan Interim diperakui oleh Pegawai Penguasa di bawah Klausa 28(6), Kontrak tersebut - Jika jawapan kepada Isu 9 ialah “YA”, sama ada kelewatan pembayaran telah diremedikan dengan perlanjutan masa yang diluluskan oleh D2 - Sama ada Plaintif telah melanggari Klausa 51, Kontrak tersebut iaitu gagal melakukan kerja dan/ atau obligasinya dengan teratur dan tekun dan telah meninggalkan tapak projek - Sama ada D2 telah melanggari Klausa 55, Kontrak tersebut iaitu lewat dalam membuat bayaran Tuntutan Progresif Interim kepada Plaintif. Jika “YA”, sama ada perlanggaran kontrak oleh D2 secara langsung “adversely affects the Works” di bawah Kontrak tersebut - Sama ada surat Plaintif bertarikh 5.7.2021 dan Notis Penamatan bertarikh 13.7.2021 merupakan satu penamatan yang sah dan teratur di bawah Klausa 55, Kontrak tersebut - Sama ada Notis Penamatan D2 bertarikh 2.9.2021 merupakan satu penamatan yang sah dan teratur di bawah Klausa 51, Kontrak tersebut - Sama ada Plaintif berhak untuk menuntut – (a) bayaran untuk Bayaran Kemajuan No. 37 berjumlah RM2,236,763.36; (b) bayaran Wang Tahanan berjumlah RM1,359,288.85 menurut Klausa 13.0, Kontrak tersebut; (c) kerugian keseluruhan kontrak sebanyak 15% berjumlah RM4,077,866.55 - Sama ada Perakuan Kos Penamatan bertarikh 18.8.2023 adalah sah - Sama ada terdapat Perakuan Kerja Tidak Siap dikeluarkan terhadap Plaintif - Sama ada Gantirugi Tertentu dan Ditetapkan wajar dikenakan terhadap Plaintif. Jika “YA”, sama ada Gantirugi Tertentu dan Ditetapkan berjumlah RM270,634.65 wajar dikenakan terhadap Plaintif - Sama ada D2 berhak ke atas jumlah sebanyak RM25,405,333.91 bagi bayaran yang perlu dibayar oleh Plaintif di bawah Perakuan Kos Penamatan tersebut 1 This Judgement is on the Plaintiff's application to substantially amend its Statement of Claim. The substantial amendment is illustrated by the fact that, the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim increases the number of paragraphs alone from 92 to 239 paragraphs. 1 This action involves the claim by a sub-contractor for its unpaid fees and a counterclaim by the contractor for the fees it allegedly paid to a replacement sub-contractor after the contractor withdrew because of non-payment. 1 Enclosure 1. In the matter, the Plaintiff who are known as Plus Three Consultants (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (“P3”) were engaged by Landasan Kapital (M) Sdn. Bhd (“LKSB”) to carry out consultancy work in respect of arbitration proceedings. P3 had allegedly presented LKSB with monthly invoices and timesheets that P3 claims were never challenged by LKSB. However, despite this, P3 claims that LKSB have refused to settle the outstanding invoices. [3] LKSB in their Defence and Counterclaim, contended that they are not obliged to settle the outstanding debt of RM1,880,378.42 and they are claiming for the return of RM1,089,531.18 in paid invoices, as well as aggravated, exemplary and/ or punitive damages. [5] There is also a counter claim by LKSB against D2, for, inter alia, breach of duties and/or fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations of good faith. D2 then filed a counterclaim against LKSB, for the non-payment of work performed by D2. 1 Enclosure 4. Enclosure 4 is the Plaintiff’s application (Enclosure 4) for an injunction to restrain the Defendant and/or their agents etc. from acting on the Purported Sub-Contract dated 5.3.2024 (Purported Sub-Contract) until full disposal of this action. 1 Originating Summons. Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005. Stay of proceeding pending arbitration proceeding. Application allowed. 1 Enclosure 8. Today’s proceedings involve both Enclosures 3 and 8 which is firstly Pestech Technology Sdn. Bhd. (“PTSB”) together with its parent company, Pestech International Bhd (PIB) (Plaintiffs) application for stay of the arbitration proceedings commenced via the Notice of Commencement of Arbitration Proceedings dated 18.10.2023 until the current proceedings pending in this Court is completely and finally disposed in Enclosure 3 (Enclosure 3) whilst Enclosure 8 is conversely the Defendant’s application pursuant to amongst others section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 for all further proceedings in this action be stayed and/or such further or other order which the Court deems appropriate to address the patent abuse attached to the said action (Enclosure 8). 1 This case concerns an application to recuse the High Court judge from further hearing the action following the Court of Appeal’s reversal of an earlier interlocutory order setting aside third party proceedings. The central issue was whether the judge’s prior findings created a real danger of bias under the “real danger of bias” test. The court held that the earlier remarks were preliminary, made at an interlocutory stage, and did not amount to a conclusive determination of the merits. Accordingly, no real danger of bias was established and the recusal application was dismissed with costs. 1 Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan untuk jumlah sebanyak RM1,317,750.00 serta faedah dan kos untuk kerja-kerja projek pembinaan yang dilaksanakan oleh Plaintif atas permintaan Defendan. 1 Enclosure 345. Administration of Justice & Civil Procedure: Whether the recusal application can be made under Order 57 Rule 1 of ROC 2012 for transfer of proceeding to another construction court - Correct test to be applied for recusal of judges- Whether the Affidavit discloses grounds evidencing "real danger of bias" test- Whether Judicial Commissioner ought to recuse himself from hearing present matter on the basis of professional association with party’s counsel 1 Whether the Defendant, as the developer, owes a tortious duty of care to the Plaintiffs to ensure that the Housing Parcels are safe for human habitation and/ or fit for purpose as exclusive property 1 If it is established that a tortious duty of care is owed, whether the Defendant has breached the same by failing to exercise all reasonable care, skill and diligence in constructing the Plaintiffs’ Housing Parcels, as follows: 1 (a) The Defendant as developer negligently installed the electrical cables and/ or wires and/ or violated the standards set under the ER 1994 and/ or ES Act 1990, which may cause and/ or have caused danger and severe damage to the Plaintiffs and/ or their family and their Housing Parcels and belongings 1 (b) The Defendant failed to install safe electrical cables and/ or wiring caused by (amongst others) wrong incoming supply cable, weak earthing cable, non-compliant wiring size, noncompliance with the electrical single line drawing, damaged armoured cable, joint wiring, sub-standard cable connection and interfloor leakage affecting the power cables 1 (c) The Defendant failed to construct the Project professionally and in a workmanlike manner thereby causing fire and short circuits 1 (d) The Defendant failed to comply with the ER 1994 by installing electrical wirings that are sub-standard 1 (e) The Defendant failed to comply with the earthing conditions prescribed under the ES Act 1990 1 (f) The Defendant failed to comply with the directions from the EC to rectify all units and submit a Completion Report (Form G) and Test Report (Form H) 1 (g) The Defendant failed to construct the Housing Parcels using materials of a suitable nature and/ or quality 1 (h) The Defendant failed to ensure that the Housing Parcels are safe for human habitation and/ or fit for purpose as exclusive property 1 Whether upon delivery of vacant possession – 1 (a) the materials, equipment and workmanship employed by the Defendant in the construction of the Housing Parcels were in accordance with the SPA and compliant with the applicable regulations and requirements 1 (b) the electrical design, wiring systems and installation works at the Housing Parcels were compliant with the applicable regulations and requirements 1 Whether the CCC issued by the Architect is defective 1 Whether the Plaintiffs are estopped from ventilating complaints of alleged defects in the Housing Parcels after – 1 (a) accepting vacant possession of the Housing Parcels without complaint or protest; and/ or 1 (b) approving and/ or acknowledging the rectification works performed by the Defendant in response to the said alleged defects 1 Whether the Plaintiffs’ complaints of alleged defects were caused and/ or contributed solely and/ or substantially by the negligence of the Plaintiffs, the contractors and/ or the agents appointed by them 1 If negligence is established, whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the following claims: 1 (a) special damages as set out in Annexure A of the SoC; 1 (b) damages as a result of defective CCC at the rate of 10% per annum calculated on a daily basis from the date of delivery of vacant possession to the date of the issuance of a complete and valid CCC; 1 (c) loss of use of the parcels fully or at all due to the threat of electrocution and leakages; 1 (d) loss of investment and/ or rental at the rate of RM10,000.00 per month from 2016 to date and continuing; 1 (e) diminution in value of the parcels; 1 (f) continuous losses as a result of leakages at the bathroom and other defects; 1 (g) continuous losses as a result of leakages at other places for all the Plaintiffs except P1 - P3; 1 (h) continuous losses as a result of defective installation of electrical wiring; 1 Fraud – Suit for fraud and collusion brought by former husband against former wife and her current husband - Whether former wife had fraudulently concealed her adulterous relationship with current husband during the original divorce proceedings before Decree Nisi was granted in October 2011 – Whether court was functus officio – Whether doctrine of res judicata applied 1 Fraud – Suit for fraud and collusion brought by former husband against former wife and her current husband - Whether former wife was “living in adultery” with current husband prior to her marriage to him – Whether spousal maintenance from former husband should have ceased - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 section 82 1 Fraud – Suit for fraud and collusion brought by former husband against former wife and her current husband - Whether former wife had fraudulently concealed her marriage to the current husband - Whether there was collusion between former wife and her current husband to mislead the Court for financial gain – Whether former husband entitled to reimbursement of spousal maintenance – Whether former husband entitled to aggravate and exemplary damages - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 section 82 1 Application by the 1st Defendant via encl. 179 moving this court pursuant to Order 49 Rule 9 and Order 92 Rule 4 RoC 2012 for the balance of the sum paid into court as security for costs. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Orders - Difference between confidentiality order and protective order - Whether scope of application to protect documents is too wide - Whether protection is necessary in view of the nature of documents 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Application for discovery - Whether there are documents for which discovery is sought - Whether documents are sufficiently set out - Whether documents are relevant - Whether documents are in the possession of the defendants and the third party - Rules of Court 2012, o. 24 r. 3, 7, 7A 1 Summary Judgment – Trademark Infringement – Order 14 ROC 2012 – Sections 54(1) and 54(2)(b) of the Trademarks Act 2019 (TMA 2019) 1 The First Plaintiff’s claim of infringement of its industrial design by the Defendant. Whether the Plaintiff has successfully established “the eye-appeal” of its Industrial Design in the finished product. 1 Intellectual Property. Patents Act. Evidence Act. Expert Opinion. Patent Infringement. Copyrights Infringement. Breach of Contract. 1 Application to intervene and be added as a defendant-Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012-The principle of overriding importance is that all necessary and proper parties, but no others, should be before the court at the same time to enable the effectual and complete determination and adjudication to be made by the court of all questions and issues between the parties which arise for decision-To this end, no action will be defeated by reason of mere mis-joinder or non-joinder of any party which is capable of being remedied and is no defence-Additionally, the court has extensive discretionary powers – to add, substitute or strike out parties who are not proper or necessary, and for these purposes the court may even act of its own motion-Generally, in common law and chancery matters, a plaintiff who considers that he has a cause of action against a defendant is entitled to pursue his remedy against that defendant alone and he cannot be forced to pursue his remedy against other persons who he has no wish to sue-Nevertheless, a person who is not a party may be added as a defendant over the objections of the plaintiff on his own intervention or upon the application of the defendant or in some cases by the court of its own motion-But, a defendant against whom no relief is sought by the plaintiff will generally not be added against the wishes of the latter. (See Hood-Bars v Frampton & Co [1924] WN 287.) A third party notice is in such a case usually the proper procedure to adopt though such a defendant can be added in a proper case-The tests the Court will use to decide an application by a person to be added as a defendant when no relief is sought by the plaintiff against that person-A person against whom no relief is sought by a plaintiff will generally not be allowed to intervene to be added as a defendant in a suit against the wishes of the plaintiff. This is because a plaintiff is entitled to pursue his remedy against a defendant that he chooses and he cannot be forced to pursue his remedy against other persons who he has no wish to sue-A person will generally not be allowed to intervene in a suit to be added as a defendant if his interest will only be affected commercially, but not legally affected by the judgment in the said suit. However, in a proper case intervention will be allowed-The dichotomy between "legal" and "commercial" interests is not helpful. A better way of expressing the test is: will his rights against or liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in the action?- 1 Action by Plaintiff against four Defendants for damages and other relief for trademark infringement, passing off and unlawful interference with trade. The Plaintiff's action for trademark infringement against the Defendants is based on the sale by the Defendants of a tea product which bears a pictorial image. 1 The Plaintiff’s action against the Defendant is for infringement of its utility innovation. 1 Whether the description and the claim in the Plaintiff’s utility innovation comply with the requirements of the Patents Act 1983 and the Patents Regulations, 1986. 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademark - Infringement - Whether defendant used plaintiffs' marks in course of trade without plaintiffs' consent - Whether use of plaintiffs' marks caused confusion - Whether doctrine of exhaustion of rights applies - Whether there was infringement - Trademarks Act 2019 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Passing off - Whether goodwill or reputation in goods or services provided - Whether there was misrepresentation by defendant - Whether there would likely be damages 1 Civil Procedure — Judgment in default — Setting aside — Delay — Application made out of time — Knowledge of judgment — Failure to update contractual address — No prayer for extension of time — Laches and prejudice — Whether application fatally defective — Regularity of service — Contractual mode of service — Registered post — Deemed service — Actual receipt immaterial — Tactical applications — Real prospect of success — Stricter test — Deliberate default — Whether JIDA regularly obtained — Rules of Court 2012 O 42 r 13 — Federal Constitution, item 7(j) of the Federal List in the Ninth Schedule. 1 Banking Law — Islamic banking — Commodity Murabahah Term Financing-i — Alleged Shariah non-compliance — Whether facility void — Effect of non-— Whether regulatory breach renders contract unenforceable compliance — Set-off — Fixed deposits — Acceleration upon default — Whether termination a condition precedent — Right of bank to combine accounts — Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 ss 28 & 281 — Section 24(e) Contracts Act 1950 1 Evidence — Certificate of indebtedness — Conclusive evidence clause — Manifest error — Burden on debtor — Internal ledger discrepancy — Whether bona fide triable issue disclosed — Without prejudice communications — Admissions of liability — Negotiation of repayment terms — Admissibility 1 Banking – Islamic banking – Summary judgment – Default in repayment of Commodity Murabahah and Multi Trade Line facilities – Plaintiff’s right to restructure and vary facilities – Whether claim involved riba or interest – Validity of ta’widh charges – Whether foreclosure proceedings bar civil claim – Whether genuine triable issues raised – Defence based on non-receipt of demand letter – Validity and scope of continuing guarantees – Guarantee and Indemnity – Whether financing claim tainted by gharar – Whether certificate of indebtedness conclusive – Whether defendants have proven manifest error – Principal liability clause – Indemnity clause – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, & 3 – Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s.12. 1 Civil procedure – Banking and Finance — Islamic banking — Summary judgment — Recovery of outstanding sums under Bai’ Bithaman Ajil and Bai’ Inah facilities – Whether the facilities agreement in breach of Shariah principles and Shariah Advisory Council’s rulings – Whether facilities agreement deemed void ab initio – Whether the banking facilities and guarantees bind the defendants – Whether genuine triable issues raised – Whether proceedings must first be taken against the principal borrower before recourse to the guarantors – Guarantee and Indemnity – Whether certificate of indebtedness conclusive – Whether service of certificate upon defendants a precondition – Whether defendants have proven manifest error – Principal liability clause – Indemnity clause – Whether the Defendants have admitted liability – Reasonable business person test to determine whether Defendants have admitted to indebtedness – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, & 3 – Contracts Act 1950, s.24(e), s.77 & s.78 – Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, s.28 & s.281 – Federal Constitution, Item 7(j) of the Federal List (List I of the 9th Schedule). 1 Civil Procedure — Res judicata — Cause of action estoppel — Issue estoppel — Earlier action dismissed as premature — No termination notice issued under facility agreement — Whether dismissal on procedural ground bars subsequent action after valid termination notice — Whether new cause of action accrued — Doctrine not absolute — Whether injustice would result if applied 1 Contract — Islamic financing — Qardhul Hasan facility — Termination of facility — Condition precedent to enforcement — Requirement of termination notice before entire sum becomes due and payable — Failure to terminate in earlier action — Whether subsequent termination crystallised debt 1 Contract — Breach — Failure to make instalment payments — Default admitted — Whether plaintiff entitled to recover full outstanding sum after valid termination 1 Evidence — Certificate of indebtedness — Conclusive evidence clause — Computer-generated certificate — Whether authorised officer must be called — Whether defendant proved manifest error 1 Practice and Procedure — Abuse of process — Whether second action following dismissal of first action is abusive — Whether plaintiff merely curing procedural defect identified by court 1 Estoppel — Res judicata — Public policy — Finality of litigation — Whether court may decline to apply doctrine where injustice would result 1 Islamic Banking — Qardhul Hasan — Benevolent loan — Enforcement after default — Interaction between Shariah-based facility and civil procedural requirements 1 Civil procedure – Islamic banking – Summary judgment against corporate guarantor – Borrower failed to make installment payments in respect of loan facility granted by plaintiff under Islamic financing facility based on Bai’ Bithaman Ajil – Judgment obtained against borrower and 2 individual guarantors in a separate suit – Whether plaintiff had established prima facie case and was entitled to summary judgment – Whether the claim is premature – Corporate Guarantee – Principal liability clause – Whether demand was effectively served on guarantor – Whether plaintiff is obliged to notify guarantor of reactivation of restructuring with borrower – Certificate of Indebtedness – Conclusive Evidence Clause – Whether payment before and after restructuring were unaccounted for – Whether defendant have shown evidence of manifest error – Whether certificate of indebtedness tained by ta’addi (misconduct), taqsir (negligence) or mukhalafah as-shurul (breach of specified terms) – Whether defendants successfully raised triable issues – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, 3 – Contracts Act 1950, s.77 & s.78. 1 Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Striking out writ of summons and statement of claim – Principles applicable – Whether claim disclosed reasonable cause of action – Whether the claim is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious – Whether the claim constitute an abuse of Court process – Whether claim was obviously unsustainable – Whether claim have raised issues which require serious consideration – Whether there was a multiplicity of proceedings – Whether there was issue estoppel – Whether handwritten note of a Minister on an appeal letter amounts to a mandatory minister’s direction – Rules of Court 2012, O.18 r.19 (1)(a), (b) & (d) – Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad (Special Provisions) Act 1978, ss 4, 5(1), 6, 14 & 16 – Development Financial Institutions Act 2002 ss. 5 & 5A – Cooperative Societies Act 1993, s.51(3) – Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009, s.56. 1 Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Appeal to judge in chambers — Setting aside, application for — Application filed beyond the 30-day time limit — Whether delay inordinate and inexcusable — Whether time should be abridged — Whether Writ was properly served — Whether default judgment was irregularly obtained — Contractual provision for service — Whether actual receipt required — Failure by defendants to update address — Whether defedants had raised defence on the merits — Allegation of third-party repayment arrangements — Absence of evidence — Tactical and deliberate non-participation until bankruptcy proceedings — Whether real prospect of success shown — Rules of Court 2012, O.10 r.3, O.12 r. 4(a), O.13 r.7, O.13 r.8, O.34 r.1(1)(b), O.42 r.13, O.56 r.1. 1 Civil Procedure — Affidavit of Service — Alleged defect in electronic copy — Missing pages in PDF copy filed — Deputy Registrar did not require refiling — Original affidavit retained under O 63 r 13(4)(c) Rules of Court 2012 — Complete version later exhibited — Whether irregularity fatal to validity of judgment — Rules of Court 2012, O.62 r.9, O.63A r.13(4)(b), O.63A r.13(4)(c), & O.63A r.15(4). 1 Contract – Musharakah agreement – Nature and proof of claim – Plaintiff suing for breach – Whether claim proven on balance of probabilities – Plaintiff founding case on agreement – Obligation to abide by all material terms – Loss-sharing as defining characteristic of musharakah – Plaintiff claiming fixed returns without accounting for venture losses – Failure to discharge legal burden of proof – Claim dismissed. 1 Contract – Prematurity of action – Settlement and extension of time – Binding variation – Acceleration clause – Whether action maintainable when filed before extended due date – Plaintiff invoking general acceleration clause for “any breach” – Clause 2.7 of extension letter – Whether triggered by mere non-payment before maturity date – Principle that acceleration clause requires breach of substantive obligation – No breach of covenant alleged prior to suit – Action held premature and struck out. 1 Illegality – Moneylending – Sham transaction – Allegation that musharakah agreement a disguise for unlicensed moneylending – Defence of illegality – Whether agreement void ab initio – Burden of proof – Factors considered: fixed periodic payments, informal references to “loan”, absence of licence – Whether sufficient to displace written terms of formal agreement – Court finding illegality not proven – Observation that claim disposed of on prematurity and failure of proof – Unnecessary to make conclusive finding on illegality. 1 Civil procedure — Submission of no case to answer — Whether plaintiff established prima facie case — Evidence — Burden of proof — Whether adverse inference should be drawn for failure to call witness — Application of Wisniewski principles— Banking — Redemption of facilities — Alleged oral settlement agreement — Whether concluded agreement prove — Evidence Act 1950, s.101, s.102 and s.114(g). 1 Civil procedure – Banking and Finance — Islamic banking — Summary judgment — Recovery of outstanding sums under Commodity Murabahah term financing and Tradeline-i facilities – Whether genuine triable issues raised – Admission of liability by principal borrower – Binding effect on borrower and guarantor – Whether the claim is premature – Guarantee and Indemnity – Whether certificate of indebtedness conclusive – Defendants produce their own ledger to rebut Plaintiff’s calculation – Whether defendants have proven manifest error – Principal liability clause – Indemnity clause – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, & 3 – Evidence Act 1950, s.114(g). 1 Civil Procedure – Stay of execution – Application for – Pending Counterclaim – Islamic Banking – Bank commenced action against customer and guarantor under a Term Financing-i Ijarah Muntahiah bi Al Tamlik facility – Court awarded summary judgment on partial sum and ordered remaining sum to be tried with the Counterclaim – Whether the existence of a counterclaim constitutes "special circumstances" to justify a stay of execution – Whether the principles laid down in the framework for counterclaims in summary judgment cases support granting a stay – Whether defendansts had shown factors to warrant stay of execution – Whether court should exercise its discretion in granting stay – Rules of Court 2012, O.14 r.6(1)(b), O.45 r.11, & O.92 r.4 1 Civil Procedure – Striking out – Fraudulent concealment – Suppression of material facts – Whether plea of fraud sustainable to set aside final judgment – Whether claim frivolous, vexatious, or abuse of process – Whether action barred by res judicata – Whether “fresh evidence” required – Whether action amounted to impermissible collateral attack on prior judgment – Res Judicata – Issue Estoppel – Finality of litigation – Exception for fraud – Whether fraud properly pleaded – Whether quantum dispute could and should have been raised earlier – Rules of Court 2012, O.18 r.19(1)(b) and (d) – Evidence Act 1950, s.44 – Cooperative Societies Act 1993, s.58. 1 Judgment – Impeachment of judgment – Fraud – Suppression of payments – Final judgment affirmed by Federal Court – Whether subsequent action to set aside permissible – Whether “reasonable diligence” required – Fresh evidence – Whether plaintiff’s own payment records constituted “new facts” – Distinction between external fraud and internal accounting discrepancy. 1 Abuse of Process – Multiplicity of proceedings – Attempt to circumvent prior discovery ruling – Prior discovery application dismissed – Subsequent suit filed five days later seeking same financial accounting – Whether action tactical and oppressive – Whether constituting “second bite at the cherry” – Abuse of court process – Striking out warranted. 1 Evidence – Fraud – Materiality – Conscious and deliberate dishonesty – Pleading requirements – Whether suppression of plaintiff’s own payments amounted to fraud – Whether defendant’s partial disclosure in earlier suit negated fraud plea. 1 Banking – Islamic finance – Bai Al-Inah facilities – Certificate of Indebtedness – Summary judgment under Order 14A – Subsequent challenge on grounds of fraudulent misstatement of indebtedness – Whether sustainable. 1 Islamic banking – Bank & banking business – Summary judgment – Default in repayment of banking facility based on Bai’ Bithaman Ajil (BBA) concept – Whether plaintiff was entitled to terminate and recall facility – Joint and several guarantee – Whether the banking facility and guarantee bind the defendants – Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to initiate concurrent action – Certificate of Indebtedness – Conclusive Evidence Clause – Whether defendants have shown evidence of manifest error – Plaintiff failed to prove posting of letters of demand and termination – Whether the claim is premature – Whether defendants successfully raised triable issues – Doubt as to bona fides of defence – Conditional leave to defend – Whether defendant ought to be given conditional leave to defend – Whether the condition imposed is reasonable – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, 3, & 4 1 Contract — Restitution — Total failure of consideration — Bank guarantee issued with incorrect expiry date — Whether instrument worthless — Whether restitution available — Contracts Act 1950, ss. 40, 65, 71, 74 1 Banking — Islamic banking — Performance guarantee under kafalah bi al-ujr — Guarantee issued with premature expiry date — Refusal to amend — Whether contrary to purpose of guarantee — Bank Negara Malaysia Kafalah Policy Document considered 1 Unjust enrichment — Fees and charges received for worthless instrument — Whether defendant unjustly enriched — Whether restitutionary remedy available — Contracts Act 1950, s.71 1 Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Determination of question of law or construction of document — Determination of breach of statutory duty — Whether issue of whether the defendant had breached the statutory duty was a question of fact, or question of law or construction — Ambit of O 14A — Rules of Court 2012. O.14A — Land Development Act 1956. s.3(1) — Bills of Exchange Act 1949, s.85 — Financial Services Act 2013, s.48 — Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 — Malaysia Anti-Corruption Corporation Act 2009, s.17A — Money Services Business Act 2011, s.36 & s.74 — Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s.16A. 1 Civil Procedure — Discovery — Inspection of documents — Whether order for production justified — Whether necessary for disposing matter fairly or for saving costs — Whether merely fishing for evidence — Whether order would be unduly oppressive — Whether documents in possession, custody and power of opponent — Rules of Court 2012, O 24 r 3, r5, r12, r 13, — Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 25(2) & Paragraph 14 of the Schedule. 1 Civil procedure – Islamic banking – Summary judgment – Application for – Failure to make installment payments in respect of loan facility granted by plaintiff under Islamic financing facility based on commodity murabahah – Whether agreement complies with the Shariah concept of Tawarruq (Commodity Murabahah) – Whether plaintiff had established prima facie case and was entitled to summary judgment – Joint and several guarantee – Principal liability clause – Certificate of Indebtedness – Conclusive Evidence Clause – Whether ibra’ should be incorporated in certificate of indebtedness – Whether Murabahah Profit Rate and ta’widh excessive – Whether defendants have shown evidence of manifest error– Whether defendants successfully raised triable issues – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, 3 - Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, s.28 & s.281 – Federal Constitution, Item 7(j) of the Federal List (List I of the 9th Schedule). 1 Civil Procedure – Judgment in default – Setting aside – Delay – Application filed 1 year 6 months out of time – Whether delay inordinate and unexplained – Test for bona fide defence – Whether defence discloses triable issue – Applicable standard where default is tactical and deliberate – Whether real prospect of success shown – Appeals from Senior Assistant Registrar to Judge in Chambers – Scope of appellate intervention – Exercise of discretion – Rules of Court 2012; o.42 r.13, o.56 r.1, 1 Civil Procedure – Affidavit evidence – Extension of time to file further affidavit – Application filed after close of affidavit evidence and exchange of written submissions – Whether abuse of process – Whether discretion exercised correctly – Rules of Court 2012; o.3 r.5 1 Civil Procedure – Service – Substituted service – Order for substituted service (SS Order) – Collateral challenge in setting aside application – Whether permissible – Distinction between personal service and substituted service 1 Insolvency Law – Undischarged bankrupt – Locus standi to prosecute legal proceedings – Setting aside application and appeal – Whether sanction of Director General of Insolvency required – Effect of stay order on bankruptcy – Whether has to be served on the Petitioning Creditor – Whether such ‘ex-parte’ stay order exist – Whether stay equates to discharge – Insolvency Act 1967; ss. 10, 11, 38(1)(a) & 97. 1 Guarantee and Suretyship – Continuing and unconditional guarantee – Clause deeming guarantor principal debtor – Clause insulating guarantee from dealings with other securities – Whether guarantor discharged by variation of security or creditor’s dealings with other facilities – Effect of express contractual terms – Contracts Act 1950; s.88. 1 Islamic banking – Whether Al-Mudharabah Investment Certificates prima facie evidence of sums held by the bank - Burden of proof - Presumption of payment after considerable lapse of time - 22-year delay - Certificate possession not conclusive - Direct witness testimony - Banking records and system migration - Automatic renewal limited to 5 years - Unclaimed Monies Act 1965 - Bankruptcy proceedings non-declaration of investment/Certificates - High net-worth client privileges - Telephone withdrawals - Limitation Act 1950 Section 6(1)(a) - Doctrine of laches - Cause of action accrues on maturity - Credible direct evidence preferred 1 Civil Procedure — Injunction — Interlocutory mandatory injunction — Principles governing grant — Whether plaintiff raised a case that was unusually strong and clear — Whether balance of convenience favoured preservation of status quo — Whether damages adequate remedy — Whether appointment of receivers and managers under debenture equitable in circumstances — Rules of Court 2012, O.29 — Specific Reliefs Act 1950, s.53 1 Banking and Finance — Factoring — Pre-factoring — Whether pre-factoring falls within activities recognised under BAFIA, FSA or IFSA — Regulatory vacuum — Whether pre-factoring closer to moneylending — Whether facilities contravened Moneylenders Act — Substance over form — Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989, s.2 — Financial Services Act 2013, s.2 — Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, s.2 — Consumer Credit Bill 2025 1 Banking and Finance — Moneylending — Moneylenders Act 1951 — Whether agreements constituted moneylending transactions disguised as Islamic factoring and pre-factoring — Whether defendant required valid moneylender’s licence — Whether agreements unenforceable — Moneylenders Act 1951, s.15 1 Islamic banking – Bank & banking business – Summary judgment – Default in repayment of banking facility – Whether agreement complies with the Shariah concept of Al-Bai Bithaman Ajil, Al-Ijarah, and Commodity Murabahah – Whether the facilities agreement in breach of Shariah principles and Shariah Advisory Council’s rulings – Whether facilities agreement deemed void ab initio – Whether the banking facilities and guarantees bind the defendants – Whether the claim is premature – Certificate of Indebtedness – Conclusive Evidence Clause – Whether defendants have shown evidence of manifest error – Whether certificate of indebtedness tained by ta’addi (misconduct), taqsir (negligence) or mukhalafah as-shurul (breach of specified terms) – Whether defendants successfully raised triable issues – Joint and several guarantee – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, 3 – Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, s.28 & s.281 – Federal Constitution, Item 7(j) of the Federal List (List I of the 9th Schedule). 1 Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Application to amend writ and statement of claim for third time – Late amendment – Amendment filed after change of solicitors – Multiple changes in legal representation – Genuine oversight discovered upon fresh review – Whether explanation for delay reasonable – Application to discontinue action against third and fourth defendants – Application to adduce additional documents into trial bundle – Whether applications bona fide – Whether prejudice compensable by costs – Whether amendments alter character of suit – Rules of Court 2012, O.20 r.5, & O.34. 1 Civil Procedure – Case management – Trial fixed for future date – Amendment and document applications filed ten months before trial – No prejudice to trial date – Defendants granted liberty to file rebuttal evidence. 1 Civil Procedure — Discovery — Documents referred to in pleadings — Meaning of “referred to” — Whether pleadings that narrate an outcome amount to reference — Whether inferential mention sufficient — Whether applicant must establish direct reference in pleading or affidavit — Relevance and necessity — Whether documents sought relate to issues pleaded — Whether discovery can be used to construct unpleaded causes of action — Whether necessity equated with usefulness — “Necessity” must advance or contradict specific factual proposition — Whether application brought under wrong rule — Specific discovery before general discovery — Whether court may cure procedural defect by invoking inherent powers — Fishing expedition — Whether applications amounted to speculative search for new defence — Whether discovery sought to delay trial and shift evidential burden — Whether handwritten note of a Minister on appeal letter amounts to a mandatory minister’s direction — Rules of Court 2012, O 24 rr 3(4), 7(4), 8, 10(1), 11, 13(1), O 92 r 4 — Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 25(2) & Paragraph 14 of the Schedule — Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad (Special Provisions) Act 1978, ss 4, 5(1), 6, 14 & 16 – Development Financial Institutions Act 2002 ss. 5 & 5A. 1 Franchise — Franchise Agreement — Breach of territorial exclusivity — Whether franchisor’s failure to prevent encroachment by third-party franchisee constituted fundamental breach — Whether franchisor acted bona fide in attempting to enforce territorial rights — Termination of Franchise Agreement — Whether plaintiff’s conduct after termination inconsistent with repudiation — Whether continued use of IT system and submission of reports estopped termination — Franchise Act 1998, s.18(2)(b), s.20, s.31(2)(b), s.31(3)(d) — Pawnbrokers Act 1972 — Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009, s.52 — Evidence Act 1950, s.57(2). 1 Contract — Remedies — Damages — General damages for breach of contract — Whether aggravated or exemplary damages warranted — Whether assessment limited to general damages in absence of express award of aggravated or exemplary damages — Contracts Act 1950, s.74(1) & (2). 1 Determination of Question of Law - Order 14A Rules of Court 2012 - Order 33 rule 2 - Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 - Sections 175 and 176 - Buy-back assurance agreement - Market manipulation - False trading - Price manipulation - Off-market transactions - Share acquisition arrangement - Statutory elements not established - No mechanism to influence market pricing - Discretionary buy-back timing - Trading data analysis - No unusual volume spikes - Securities Commission jurisdiction - Pleaded facts assumed correct - Agreement not illegal - Enforcement not precluded 1 Civil Procedure - Mareva Injunction - Whether there is a good arguable case - Whether the Plaintiff has assets within Jurisdiction - Whether there is a real risk that the Plaintiffs’ assets will be dissipated or moved before judgment could be satisfied - the Defendant has no claim to be enforced against the Plaintiff - The Defendant itself is impecunious 1 Judgment after trial – Contractual disputes under the Service Agreement (“SA”) to provide software development services – Claims for outstanding sums – The Defendant’s witness was not privy to the communication between the Defendant and the Plaintiff at the material times – Evidence unrebutted will be sufficient to discharge the legal burden needed to meet the cause of action. The Defendant led no evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s testimonies – Nowhere in the SA did it state that the website was for gambling or an online casino gaming platform that would be operated from Malaysia, Section 24 – Contracts Act 1950. Court ordered the outstanding sums to be paid with the interest thereon by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. 1 Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Banking facilities — Plaintiff seeking recovery of outstanding sum under facility agreement — Defendants raising alleged triable issues including vague claim, unclear calculation, and non est factum defence — Whether Defendants established bona fide defence or triable issue — Whether summary judgment appropriate — Rules of Court 2012, O 14 1 Contract — Banking facilities — Facility agreement, personal guarantee, and corporate guarantee executed — Default in repayment by borrower — Guarantors liable under guarantee instruments — Whether ignorance or misunderstanding of terms valid defence — Non est factum defence considered and rejected — Letters of Offer, Personal Guarantee, Corporate Guarantee binding and enforceable 1 Evidence — Certificate of Indebtedness — Whether conclusive evidence of debt — Defendants failed to show manifest error or fraud — Whether Plaintiff required to exhaust securities before claiming from guarantors — Certificate deemed binding — Principle of conclusive indebtedness applied 1 CONTRACT LAW: Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation – Negligent misrepresentation – Elements required to establish misrepresentation – Whether representations made regarding delivery of goods – Whether representations false – Whether made with knowledge of falsity or recklessly without caring whether true or false – Whether made with intent to induce reliance – Whether plaintiff relied on representations – Whether plaintiff suffered damage – Whether duty of care existed in making representations – Whether special relationship giving rise to duty of care – Burden of proof on party alleging misrepresentation – Whether contemporaneous documentary evidence contradicts claim of misrepresentation 1 CONTRACT LAW: Hire purchase agreement – Voidability – Section 19(1) Contracts Act 1950 – Whether consent to agreement caused by misrepresentation – Whether agreement voidable at option of party whose consent caused by misrepresentation – Want of consideration – Total failure of consideration – Whether valid consideration existed in form of financing services – Whether consideration failed where underlying goods allegedly not delivered – Whether hire purchase agreement void for failure of consideration 1 CONTRACT LAW: Sale and delivery of goods – Delivery obligations – Contractual recipient versus delivery location – Whether delivery to be made to specific corporate entity or to customer at specified location – Whether delivery made to proper contractual party – Authority to acknowledge receipt – Application of Turquand rule (indoor management principle) – Whether signature and company stamp entitle parties to assume proper corporate authority – Effect of delivery documentation signed by authorised representative – Acknowledgment of receipt – Whether delivery orders and certificates of completion constitute binding acknowledgments 1 EVIDENCE: Burden of proof – Section 101 Evidence Act 1950 – Burden on plaintiff to prove facts in issue – Whether burden discharged on balance of probabilities – Documentary evidence versus oral evidence – Contemporaneous documents to be preferred over subsequent recollections – Whether oral evidence contradicting contemporaneous documents admissible – Hearsay evidence – Section 60(1) Evidence Act 1950 requirement for direct evidence – Whether witnesses had personal knowledge of facts – Whether testimony based on direct observation – Adverse inference – Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 – Whether failure to call material witness warrants adverse inference – Whether evidence withheld would have been unfavourable to withholding party 1 EQUITY: Estoppel by conduct – Acquiescence – Laches – Whether party estopped from denying delivery by own contemporaneous conduct – Prolonged silence and inaction – Whether delay in raising complaint amounts to acquiescence – Whether party remained silent for extended period despite opportunities to verify position – Effect of signing delivery notes and certificates of completion – Whether party can resile from clear acknowledgments in formal documentation – Commercial certainty and fairness – Whether unconscionable to permit denial of delivery after others acted in reliance 1 TORT: Negligent misrepresentation – Whether special relationship existed giving rise to duty of care – Whether duty of care arose from commercial relationship – Whether duty of care imposed in tort where parties have contractual relationship – Whether COVID-19 pandemic and Movement Control Orders created duty to act with reasonable care in confirming delivery – Whether breach of duty established – Whether causation and damage proven 1 RESTITUTION: Unjust enrichment – Whether party unjustly enriched by receiving payment for services not performed – Whether consideration failed – Total failure of consideration – Whether enrichment at expense of plaintiff – Whether retention of payment unconscionable 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Third party proceedin 1 FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION: Elements of fraud – False representation of fact – Knowledge of falsity or recklessness – Intention to induce reliance – Whether defendants made false representations that company was licensed and legitimate gold trading business – Whether defendants knew representations were false or were reckless as to their truth – Whether representations intended to be acted upon by plaintiffs – Whether plaintiffs relied on representations in entering into transactions – Whether plaintiffs suffered damage as result of reliance – Test for fraudulent misrepresentation requiring proof that representation made knowingly, without belief in truth, or recklessly careless whether true or false – Distinction between strict liability criminal offences and civil fraud requiring subjective dishonesty – Whether criminal conviction establishes subjective element necessary for civil fraud – Whether fraud proved by absence of honest belief in truth of statement 1 TRUST LAW: Constructive trust – Fraudulent breach of trust – Institutional vs remedial constructive trust – Whether constructive trust arose when plaintiffs paid money and delivered gold pursuant to fraudulent misrepresentations – Whether trust arose by operation of law from fraudulent circumstances – Whether defendants held plaintiffs' property on trust to perform contracts or return money and gold – Whether defendants owed fiduciary duties as constructive trustees – Whether defendants fraudulently breached trust by retaining property and failing to deliver purchased gold or return consideration – Application of section 22(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 to fraudulent breach of trust claims – Whether distinction between institutional and remedial constructive trust relevant to application of section 22(1)(a) – Whether action in respect of fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which trustee was party or privy exempt from limitation period – Whether constructive trust imposed by law irrespective of parties' intention – Whether equity intervenes to create trust relationship to prevent unfairness or injustice 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata – Effect of nullity of prior proceedings – Whether res judicata bars fresh action where earlier proceedings declared void ab initio – Whether proceedings void for lack of prosecutorial consent under section 54(3) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 – Whether void ab initio proceedings treated as never having existed – Whether nullity of proceedings means no valid judicial determination capable of founding res judicata defence – Whether constructive res judicata in wider sense applies – Whether fraud cause of action available in earlier proceedings but not pleaded – Whether criminal conviction occurring after earlier suit dismissed constitutes new evidence – Whether materially different causes of action in fresh suit – Application of res judicata where different parties joined as defendants – Whether doctrine should be applied where to do so would lead to unjust result 1 LIMITATION: Application of Limitation Act 1953 to fraud-based claims – Section 22(1) exception for fraud or fraudulent breach of trust – Section 29 postponement where fraud concealed – Whether limitation period applies to action for fraudulent breach of constructive trust – Whether section 22(1)(a) applies to both institutional and remedial constructive trusts – When limitation period begins to run in fraud cases – Whether plaintiff discovered fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it – Whether criminal conviction establishes date of discovery of fraud – Whether commencement of criminal proceedings put plaintiffs on notice of fraud – Whether specific fraud requiring proof of subjective dishonesty discoverable before criminal court findings – Whether mere suspicion of fraud insufficient for limitation purposes – Whether requisite knowledge must be of specific frau 1 Civil Procedure — Striking out — Application by all defendants to strike out writ and statement of claim — Whether claim plain and obviously unsustainable — Whether issues require determination at full trial — Test under O 18 r 19 Rules of Court 2012 — Court declining to summarily dismiss claim — Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 19 1 Insolvency — Receivers and Managers — Sale of property by receivers during pending judicial management application — Validity of Sale and Purchase Agreement — Whether SPA enforceable — Whether plaintiff has locus standi to challenge SPA — Whether breach of section 410 Companies Act 2016 — Whether misconduct by receivers or chargee bank — Companies Act 2016, s. 410 1 Company Law — Agency of Receivers and Managers — Whether acts of receivers attributable to chargee bank — Allegation of conspiracy to force sale at undervalue — Whether plaintiff wrongfully deprived of right to redeem property — Need for factual determination at trial 1 Remedies — Injunction previously refused as damages adequate — Whether claim nevertheless discloses reasonable cause of action — Court allowing claim to proceed to trial notwithstanding refusal of interim relief 1 SALE OF GOODS: International sale of goods – Free on Board (FOB) delivery terms – Product specifications and quality – Refined Bleached Deodorized Coconut Oil – Free Fatty Acid (FFA) specifications – Certificate of Analysis – Risk transfer upon shipment – Whether goods met contractual specifications at point of packing – Whether FOB terms absolve seller from liability for alleged defects – Whether seller discharged obligations by delivering conforming goods at point of loading – Whether risk of post-shipment deterioration passed to buyer – Whether dramatic increase in FFA levels caused by inherent defects existing at packing – Whether increase in FFA caused by post-shipment environmental factors during transit and storage – Whether contemporaneous Certificates of Analysis constitute reliable evidence of compliance with specifications – Whether buyer failed to discharge burden of proving pre-existing defects at point of shipment – Whether delay in testing goods after shipment fatal to buyer's claim 1 CONTRACT LAW: Variation of contract – Payment terms – Advance payment before shipment – Offer and acceptance – Consensus ad idem – Whether binding variation of payment terms concluded between parties – Whether letter dated 17.5.2022 constituted proposal requiring acceptance or confirmation of concluded agreement – Whether parties reached concluded agreement or remained in negotiations – Whether credit committee approval required before binding variation could exist – Whether amendments proposed on 3.6.2022 were material changes or cosmetic clarifications – Whether specification of performance dates, termination rights and interest provisions constituted material terms – Whether proposal validly revoked before acceptance by email dated 7.6.2022 – Whether silence in response to revocation evidenced absence of concluded agreement – Whether variation can be effected by course of dealing or conduct – Whether negotiations failed to crystallize into binding contractual obligations 1 EVIDENCE: Expert evidence – Scientific evidence in edible oils chemistry – Lipid chemistry – Whether expert opinion supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature – Whether expert demonstrated proper understanding of chemical processes – Distinction between hydrolysis and oxidation as causes of oil degradation – Whether hydrolysis (moisture-induced) or oxidation (oxygen-induced) caused Free Fatty Acid formation – Whether expert conflated separate chemical processes – Weight to be attached to competing expert testimony – Whether expert evidence consistent with established scientific principles 1 DAMAGES: Breach of contract for non-delivery – Loss of profits – Back-to-back sale contracts – Penalties paid to third-party customers – Mitigation of loss – Whether plaintiff proved loss of profits from unperformed on-sale contracts – Whether calculation properly deducted all costs to arrive at net profit – Whether penalties paid pursuant to contractual penalty clauses recoverable as damages – Whether penalties direct and foreseeable consequence of breach – Whether plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate loss by sourcing alternative supplies – Whether specific product could be substituted with alternatives – Whether payment of contractual penalties reasonable in circumstances – Set-off of cross-claims between multiple contracts 1 CONTRACT LAW: Repudiatory breach – Refusal to perform – Unlawful termination – Whether seller's refusal to deliver unless buyer made advance payment constituted repudiatory breach – Whether seller entitled to withhold delivery under separate contracts due to outstanding payments under other contracts – Whether seller's purported termination for buyer's failure to make advance payment unlawful where no binding variation agreed – Whether party in breach precluded from recovering damages arising from own wrongdoing 1 < 1 Civil Procedure - Summary Judgment application - Order 14 ROC - whether failure of Plaintiff to proceed with a mandatory mediation process prior to filing the present suit constitutes triable issue - whether the Defendant's defence of injunction granted by the other court that prohibits from making any payments to the Plaintiff constitutes triable issue 1 Arbitration — Stay of proceedings — Application under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Statutory requirements for a stay 1 Arbitration agreement — Interpretation of dispute resolution clause — Clause 9.14 of Personal Guarantee Agreement — Whether arbitration is mandatory or optional 1 Inoperative agreement — Whether arbitration agreement becomes inoperative once a party exercises a contractual right to litigate — Section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005. 1 Civil Procedure — Step in the proceedings — Definition of "taking a step" under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether filing an application to set aside a judgment in default (JIDA) constitutes a step 1 Judgment in Default — Whether setting aside JIDA is a "defensive action" to preserve rights — Relationship between setting aside JIDA and stay of execution 1 Stay of Execution — Application to stay execution of JIDA pending setting aside — Whether such application disentitles a party from seeking a stay pending arbitration. 1 Arbitration - Stay of proceedings — Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005 — Arbitration clause in AFC Champions League Competition Regulations — Dispute “in connection with the Competition” — Meaning of “Competition” — Claim for unpaid prize money, subsidies and expenses — Liability and quantum admitted — Crystallised debt — Non-payment due to banking compliance and extraterritorial sanctions — No dispute relating to competition — No nexus between claim and arbitration clause — Arbitration clause inapplicable — Court entitled to determine scope of arbitration agreement — Full merits test 1 Civil Procedure - Summary judgment – O.14 Rules of Court 2012 – Claim for payment for maintenance and repair works — Works completed and acknowledged by signed and stamped documents — Partial payments made without protest — Clear contemporaneous documentary evidence — Defences of inflated claims, collusion, absence of purchase orders and reliance on internal SOP unsupported and raised belatedly — Internal SOP not binding on plaintiff — Silence and partial payments gave rise to estoppel — No bona fide triable issue on principal sum — Summary judgment correctly granted — Contractual interest not suitable for determination under O 14. 1 two agreements-This agreement has an arbitration clause for arbitration-The second agreement-the parties agree “that the Courts of Malaysia shall have jurisdiction-an application for a stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration-The court’s power to stay court proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration is governed by section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (“AA 2005”)-The defendants in order to get a stay have to prove-there is an arbitration agreement between the parties-the proceedings are in respect of a matter that is subject to the arbitration agreement-the defendants have not taken any other steps in the proceedings-the arbitration agreement is not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed-It is trite law that a dispute in relation to a contract which has no arbitration clause cannot be referred to arbitration even if this contract is related to a contract with an arbitration clause. A party asserting that an arbitration clause in an agreement applies to another but related agreement which has no arbitration clause must show that there is such incorporation on the plain wording of the said arbitration clause-the Court has a discretion under the Arbitration Ordinance 1950 not to grant a stay-mandatory effect of granting a stay once s 10 of the AA 2005 is satisfied by the defendant 1 Civil Procedure — Judgment in default — Application to set aside — Judgment regularly entered — Defendant failed to file appearance within time — No complaint on regularity of judgment — Application filed beyond 30-day period — No application to abridge time — No explanation for delay — Whether mandatory time frame complied with — Whether failure to apply for extension fatal to application — Application dismissed in limine — Rules of Court 2012 O 42 r 13 1 Civil Procedure — Defence — No draft defence filed — No bona fide or triable defence disclosed — Defendant a surety and also liable as principal debtor — Whether liability under letter of guarantee arises independently — Whether loss of control due to receiver appointment constitutes defence — Application dismissed — Rules of Court 2012 O 19 r 9 1 Company Law — Receiver and manager — Appointment over defendant company — Loss of board control — Whether internal disputes between board and receiver affect plaintiff’s rights 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Mareva Injunction - Whether elements of a Mareva Injunction fulfilled - Whether the Plaintiffs have a good arguable case - Whether the Defendant has assets within the jurisdiction - Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets - Evidence of Defendant's lack of probity - Sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ undertaking as to damages - Mareva Injunction granted 1 Judgment after trial - Claims for balance purchase price of shares under Shares Purchase Agreement – Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim outstanding payments despite receiving a full and final settlement of due amounts – Plaintiff fails to discharge her evidential burden – Allegation of forgery was not proven - Part B of Bundle of Documents where its authenticity was not in dispute - neither police report was lodged by the Plaintiff nor amendments to the pleadings was made – whether an agreement without consideration is void - whether contracting parties agree to vary the terms of an initial agreement - variation of the terms of payment on the time of payment and as to the payee. The Plaintiff’s contention that the variations made to the terms of the SPA were void was rejected. Claims dismissed with costs. 1 summary judgment application-Guarantee-In an Order 14 application the burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants-The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants. It is not enough for the defendants to make bare allegations or give a mere general denial of a debt-A court hearing an Order 14 application must take a robust approach and examine carefully to see if sufficient facts and particulars had been given by a defendant to show that there is a triable issue to justify leave to defend-If an alleged triable issue is contradicted or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents the defendant’s alleged triable issue must be rejected-The Certificates of Indebtedness-A certificate of indebtedness issued in accordance with the express provisions of the contract which provide that the certificate is final and conclusive of the matters stated therein is final and conclusive evidence of the amount in the absence of any manifest error on the certificate; and-The plaintiff has no further obligation to produce statements of account to prove the debt in an application for summary judgment.-To challenge a certificate of Indebtedness the defendants must show:-The certificate of indebtedness was not issued in accordance with the express provisions of the contract. An instances of non-compliance would be when the certificate of indebtedness was not signed by an officer of the plaintiff as stated in the contract; or-There is a manifest error in respect of the amounts stated on the certificate of indebtedness; or-There is fraud 1 summary judgment application-Guarantee-In an Order 14 application the burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants-The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants. It is not enough for the defendants to make bare allegations or give a mere general denial of a debt-A court hearing an Order 14 application must take a robust approach and examine carefully to see if sufficient facts and particulars had been given by a defendant to show that there is a triable issue to justify leave to defend-If an alleged triable issue is contradicted or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents the defendant’s alleged triable issue must be rejected-The Certificates of Indebtedness-A certificate of indebtedness issued in accordance with the express provisions of the contract which provide that the certificate is final and conclusive of the matters stated therein is final and conclusive evidence of the amount in the absence of any manifest error on the certificate; and-The plaintiff has no further obligation to produce statements of account to prove the debt in an application for summary judgment.-To challenge a certificate of Indebtedness the defendants must show:-The certificate of indebtedness was not issued in accordance with the express provisions of the contract. An instances of non-compliance would be when the certificate of indebtedness was not signed by an officer of the plaintiff as stated in the contract; or-There is a manifest error in respect of the amounts stated on the certificate of indebtedness; or-There is fraud. 1 CONTRACT LAW: Agricultural contracts – Chilli fertigation project – Breach of contract by failure to make payments – Whether defendant breached contract by failing to pay 30% advance payment of total contract price – Whether defendant's refusal to pay third invoice constituted breach of contract – Whether plaintiff obtained valid approval for variation works – Whether defendant wrongfully denied access to project site – Whether defendant wrongfully detained plaintiff's assets – Whether plaintiff breached contract by withdrawal from project – Whether defendant entitled to retain retention sum – Quantum of damages for breach of contract – Claim for general and exemplary damages 1 TORT LAW: Negligence – Alternative claim alongside contractual claim – Duty of care in commercial relationships – Whether essential elements of negligence established – Failure to disclose material information about project site conditions – Whether negligence claim sustainable where contractual relationship governs parties' duties – Application of Caparo three-stage test for duty of care – Whether concurrent liability in tort and contract permissible 1 COMMERCIAL LAW: Tender contracts – Payment terms and procedures – Variation orders and approval processes – Site access rights – Retention sums and security deposits – Mitigation of damages – Whether contractor estopped from claiming original payment terms after agreeing to revised schedule – Whether informal approvals sufficient for variation works – Burden of proof for damage claims 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings – Reply to Defence – Striking out application – Introduction of new allegations and causes of action in reply – Whether reply can depart from statement of claim – Whether new factual matters involving separate transactions can be pleaded in reply – Scope and function of reply pleading – Whether reply must be confined to answering matters raised in defence – Whether questioned paragraphs introduce new causes of action that should have been pleaded in statement of claim – Application of Order 18 rule 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Rules of Court 2012 – Whether questioned paragraphs scandalous, frivolous or vexatious – Whether questioned paragraphs irrelevant to reliefs sought in original claim – Whether questioned paragraphs will prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of action – Whether inclusion of questioned paragraphs constitutes abuse of process – Duplicative litigation of same matters in multiple suits – Risk of inconsistent findings between concurrent proceedings – Whether similar fact evidence provisions under sections 11(b), 14 and 15 of Evidence Act 1950 justify pleading matters in reply – Distinction between pleading facts and adducing similar fact evidence at trial – Proper procedure for expanding claim through amendment rather than reply – Principle of judicial consistency between decisions of coordinate jurisdiction – Application of precedent in substantially similar factual and legal circumstances 1 BANKING LAW: Banker's duty of care to customer – Customer due diligence and account reactivation – Handling of garnishee proceedings – Express and implied contractual duties – Reasonable care and skill – Extended Quincecare-type duty to avert fraud – Whether bank breached duty of care in conducting prolonged due diligence process – Whether bank adequately notified customer of garnishee proceedings – Whether bank should have disputed liability under Order 49 Rule 5 ROC 2012 – Whether frozen bank account constitutes "debt due or accruing due" for garnishee purposes – Whether bank's conduct in handling account reactivation and garnishee proceedings fell below standard of reasonable care and skill 1 CONTRACT LAW: Express and implied terms in banking contracts – Scope of banker's duties – Standard of care – Exclusion and limitation clauses – Business efficacy – Whether bank's duties limited to express terms in Terms and Conditions – Whether implied terms requiring prompt response and account reactivation necessary for business efficacy – Whether exclusion clause exempting bank from liability for negligence in core banking functions enforceable – Whether exclusion clause void as contrary to public policy and Section 74 Contracts Act 1950 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Garnishee proceedings – Order 49 Rules of Court 2012 – Debt due or accruing due – Garnishee's right to dispute liability – Whether frozen bank account subject to contractual restrictions constitutes attachable debt – Whether garnishee bank entitled to dispute liability when account holder contractually unable to access funds – Whether Order 49 Rule 1(3) "restriction as to mode of withdrawal" includes complete freezing for due diligence – Whether Order 49 Rule 8 protection extends to garnishee whose prior breaches enabled fraud 1 TORT LAW: Negligence – Duty of care – Causation – But-for test – Novus actus interveniens – Whether bank owed common law duty of care beyond contractual duties – Whether breach of duty was but-for and proximate cause of customer's loss – Whether third-party fraudulent conduct broke chain of causation – Whether loss reasonably foreseeable consequence of bank's breaches – Whether customer's conduct broke chain of causation 1 DAMAGES: Causation and remoteness – Mitigation – Contributory negligence – Special damages – Whether customer failed to mitigate losses by delaying legal action – Whether customer contributorily negligent in providing documentation or withdrawing funds – Whether legal fees incurred in setting aside fraudulent orders recoverable as special damages – Whether travel expenses between jurisdictions recoverable – Whether general damages recoverable for breach of banking contract absent specific evidence 1 Civil Procedure - O.14 Rules of Court 2012 - Summary judgment - Application for summary judgment - Whether there are triable issues - Defendant’s failure to comply once Plaintiff exercised Put Option - Plaintiff's claim over the differential sum arising from Defendant’s default - No triable issues proven - Summary judgment granted 1 Contract Law - Doctrine of freedom of contract - Enforcement of rights under contract - Call option agreement - Put option agreement - Directors’ Irrevocable Undertaking to guarantee due performance - Breach of contract by Defendant - Parties are bound by terms of contract - No particulars of illegality, settlement or breach - No counterclaim by Defendants for the alleged breach 1 Summary judgment – Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Claim by plaintiff for repayment of a friendly loan – Whether breach of the loan agreement on the part of defendant – Whether admission by defendant that he has received the loan – Whether the loan agreement is a sham – Whether defendant executed the loan agreement under undue influence – Whether the loan agreement contravened the Moneylending Act 1951. 1 Shareholders’ Agreement – Corporate governance – Is the Defendant bound by the Shareholders’ Agreement? – Shareholders’ Agreement not binding on Defendant (company not a party). 1 Loan vs Capital Investment – Interest on Advances – Are the funds advanced loans or capital contributions? – Defendant claimed the funds were shareholder contributions, not loans. – The agreement reflects intent – advances beyond RM 350,000 are loans with 8% interest. – No evidence of conversion of loans to capital or shareholding. 1 Estoppel – Is the Plaintiff estopped from filing this suit due to a previous withdrawal? – Plaintiff had the liberty to refile the suit after withdrawal of the earlier claim. 1 MONEYLENDING LAW: Unlicensed moneylending – Promissory notes alleged to be investment agreements – Whether transactions constituted genuine investment arrangements or disguised moneylending transactions – Whether presumption under section 10OA of Moneylenders Act 1951 successfully rebutted – Whether promissory notes void and unenforceable under section 15 of Moneylenders Act 1951 – Whether court should look beyond labels to examine substance of transaction 1 CONTRACT LAW: Validity of promissory notes – Consideration – Whether valid consideration existed when funds paid to company while individual defendants signed as makers – Whether consideration must move to promisors – Whether corporate personality of company distinct from directors and shareholders for purposes of consideration 1 STAMP ACT 1949: Stamping requirements – Whether promissory notes duly stamped when physical stamps affixed after execution – Whether promissory notes can be stamped after execution – Whether stamps must bear proper endorsement by Inland Revenue Board – Whether unstamped or insufficiently stamped instruments admissible in evidence 1 EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Whether adverse inference should be drawn under section 114(g) of Evidence Act 1950 for failure of defendant to testify – Whether medical certificate providing legitimate reason for non-attendance – Whether testimony would materially alter case outcome 1 BREACH OF CONTRACT: Notice requirements – Whether failure to provide requisite written notice before enforcement rendered action premature – Whether defendant's prior breach entitled plaintiff to treat himself as discharged from notice obligations 1 O.14, r1 – Summary Judgment – Whether summary judgment should be entered – Court duty bound – consider the affidavits and pleadings filed – Should only be entered in a plain and obvious case. Issue – Whether the Defendant – shown a bona fide defence or any issue or question to be tried or that there ought to be any reason for the matter to be determined after trial. Burden of Proof – on the Plaintiff – to show that they have a clear and undeniable claim against the Defendant – but once Plaintiff discharged that burden - the burden moves to the Defendants – to show – there are either bona fide defences to the claim or that there are issues that require deliberation – through trial. Investment Agreement – promises made – inability to pay the promised return – Whether the investment agreement is a moneylending agreement – The Defendants have not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff was ever involved in a business of moneylending – The allegations remains a mere averment on the part of the Defendants – Maxim – equity will not permit statute to be used as an engine of fraud. 1 TAKAFUL LAW: Contract of utmost good faith – Misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts – Deliberate or reckless misrepresentations – Duty of proposer to provide accurate information – Duty of takaful operator regarding verification of information – Whether inclusion of certificate in Part A of Common Bundle precludes challenge to validity and enforceability – Whether takaful operator breached duty of utmost good faith by failing to investigate proposer's information before issuing certificate – Whether takaful operator entitled to rely on proposer's declarations without independent verification – Whether misrepresentation of annual income constituted material fact – Whether declaration of non-existent business entity constituted misrepresentation – Whether misrepresentation of source of takaful contribution payment established – Whether denial of substance consumption in proposal form constituted misrepresentation – Whether misrepresentations were material to takaful operator's risk assessment and underwriting decision – Whether misrepresentations were deliberate or reckless within meaning of Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 – Whether certificate void ab initio under Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 – Materiality presumption under statutory provisions 1 INSURANCE LAW: Accidental death benefit – Exclusion clauses – Causation requirements for exclusions – Whether exclusion clauses for accidental death benefit apply to bar claim – Whether death caused by taking drugs or narcotics without prescription – Whether death caused by alcohol and drugs intoxication – Whether death caused by attempted suicide or self-inflicted injuries – Whether mere presence of substances in deceased's system sufficient to trigger exclusions without proof of causation – Whether substance levels below legal limits negate intoxication exclusion – Whether negligent behaviour constitutes reckless conduct amounting to self-inflicted injuries – Interpretation of exclusion clause language requiring direct or indirect causation 1 CONTRACT LAW: Validity and enforceability of contracts – Formation of contracts based on misrepresentation – Effect of material misrepresentations on contract validity – Whether payment of statutory benefits constitutes admission of certificate validity and enforceability – Whether payment of benefits estops insurer from avoiding certificate or declining claims – Whether contractual provisions allow avoidance for misrepresentation – Interpretation of certificate terms and conditions – Distinction between acknowledging document existence and acknowledging legal enforceability 1 EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of proof in misrepresentation cases – Standard of proof for establishing misrepresentations – Adverse inference under Evidence Act provisions – Whether adverse inference should be drawn for non-production of witnesses and documents – Whether failure to call material witnesses warrants adverse inference – Whether non-production of investigation findings, screening results, procedural documents, and written decisions warrants adverse inference – Whether party's failure to adduce documentary evidence of claimed activities and income warrants adverse inference – Distinction between withholding existing evidence and failure to obtain evidence – Materiality requirement for drawing adverse inference – Scope and limits of adverse inference provisions 1 PROCEDURAL LAW: Common Bundle of Documents – Status of Part A documents – Whether agreement on document contents determines legal enforceability – Distinction between acknowledging document authenticity and acknowledging legal effect – Whether parties precluded from challenging validity of documents included in agreed bundles – Procedural convenience versus substantive legal determinations – Court's jurisdiction to determine contract validity despite document inclusion 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking Out application - Plaintiff's claim against Defendants for conspiracy and fraudulent trading - Claim that winding up of a company is tantamount to fraudulent trading - Claim that Defendants conspired to injure Plaintiff by orchestrating winding up of a company - No plea on availability of assets - Actions by Defendants did not show any intention to defraud creditors - Speculative and unsustainable claim - Striking out allowed - s.540 of the Companies Act 2016 - O.18, r.19 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 INJUNCTION: Application for an interim injunction - Whether there are serious questions to be tried - Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction - Whether the company still holds the manufacturer's license - Whether the company is the product registration holder - Whether the defendant should be restrained from carrying on activities in the property - Whether damages are an adequate remedy 1 Courts will strike out a suit based on the principles of "let the loss lie where it falls" and in pari delicto when the parties are equally at fault in an illegal or immoral transaction. The courts act on the Latin maxim “Ex turpi causa non oritur actio”, which states that no action arises from a dishonourable cause-The maxim in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) can be displaced or moderated by three considerations commonly referred to as the “trio of considerations” first propounded in the English Supreme Court case of Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42-to strike out the plaintiffs’ Writ-Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) and/or (b), (c) and (d) of the ROC 2012-Whether a case is plain or obvious does not depend upon the length of time it takes to argue the case, but that when the case argued on the affidavit evidence available, it becomes plain and obvious that the case has no chance of success-Where the affidavit evidence discloses a dispute of facts, such facts must be analysed and if they are found to be inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or inherently improbable in themselves, the court is entitled to reject those facts and proceed upon the undisputed contemporaneous documentary evidence. A trial of the action will not add anything more-The court must submit the evidence to critical examination. If that leads to the conclusion that the action could not possibly succeed it should be struck out-What are sham agreements?-A written agreement is a sham where it incorporates clauses by which neither party intends to be bound and which is obviously a smokescreen to cover the real intentions of both contracting parties-Court will not assist a party who takes advantage of its own wrongdoings and comes to court without clean hands-It is trite that the court will not condone or lend its hand to a party who takes advantage of its own wrongdoings and comes to court without clean hands-It is a universal principle of law that the court would not allow a party to take advantage of his own wrong-It is also trite law that the court will not assist a plaintiff or any party who is privy to an immoral or an illegal act-the court would not lend its aid to the plaintiff who had founded his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act-The court can take cognizance of illegality even if not expressly pleaded by a defendant if on the pleadings and or facts the claim is ex facie illegal-The maxim in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) can be displaced or moderated by three considerations commonly referred to as the “trio of considerations” first propounded-the burden is on the plaintiffs to satisfy the court that the “trio of considerations” favour them-The concept of separate legal entity as between a company and its members or directors can be traced back to the landmark English House of Lords decision-Directors do not bear personal liability for the contractual breaches of their company for acts done in their capacity as directors. 1 Striking out – Claim for outstanding sum arising from inter-company services – Whether the inter-company debts were mere book-keeping entries – Whether the claim is time-barred – Whether the inter-company charges are recurring – Whether running account – Whether acknowledgement of debt in the audited accounts. 1 Civil procedure - striking out application - Order 18 Rule 9 of ROC - whether the claim is barred by duplicity - whether the claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata - whether Plaintiff was incompetent to file the claim as he was an undischarged bankrupt at the material time when the writ and statement of claim was filed 1 Striking out – Plaintiff claims agency commission for the sale of property – Plaintiff sues 4th defendant for conspiracy and unjust enrichment – 4th defendant is not a party to the agency agreement – Whether 4th defendant is privy to the termination of the agency agreement – Whether 4th defendant’s purchase of the Request for Proposal document from plaintiff creates any privity of contract between them – Whether 4th defendant has the right to purchase the subject property – Whether the necessary particulars of conspiracy was pleaded 1 INJUNCTIONS: Interim injunction – Application to restrain payment and dissipation of funds – Applicability of American Cyanamid principles – Whether serious issues to be tried disclosed – Whether beneficial ownership of shares raises triable issue – Whether nominee and trust relationship established – Whether damages adequate remedy – Whether risk of dissipation demonstrated – Whether balance of convenience favours grant of injunction – Whether clean hands doctrine bars relief – Whether undertaking as to damages sufficient – Preservation of status quo pending trial 1 COMPANY LAW: Corporate personality – Beneficial ownership of shares – Nominee shareholders – Whether shares held on trust for beneficial owner – Whether registered shareholder holds shares as nominee and trustee – Proper plaintiff rule – Whether shareholder has locus standi to bring personal claim – Whether claim constitutes derivative action requiring leave under sections 347-350 of Companies Act 2016 – Whether shareholder has direct proprietary interest in company's assets – Distinction between personal claim for breach of fiduciary duty and derivative claim for wrong to company – Whether Foss v Harbottle rule applies 1 TRUSTS AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES: Nominee and trustee relationship – Breach of fiduciary duties – Whether fiduciary duties owed personally to beneficial owner – Whether nominee placed herself in position of conflict of interest – Whether use of company funds for estate purposes constitutes breach – Whether duty to account discharged – Whether consent obtained for use of funds – Evidence of nominee relationship through conduct and correspondence 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata and issue estoppel – Effect of previous interlocutory decision – Whether interlocutory decision creates res judicata – Whether withdrawal of suit with liberty to file afresh bars fresh proceedings – Whether issues finally determined – Material distinctions between previous and present relief sought – Clean hands doctrine – Whether delay bars equitable relief – Whether breach of court order defeats application – Whether inadequate disclosure constitutes material non-disclosure – Whether doctrine applied mechanically or based on overall justice 1 Application for leave to execute Judgment after 6 years-The relevant rules applicable when a judgment creditor applies to court to enforce a judgment or order where six years or more have lapsed since the date of the judgment or order are Order 46 rule 2 read with Order 46 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court 2012-Leave to execute a judgment will not be granted when there is no longer any pending judgment or order to enforce as the same has been superseded or extinguished by a settlement agreement between parties-The court under Order 46 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court 2012 will grant leave to execute Judgment after 6 years if the judgment creditor has in his supporting affidavit-identified the judgment or order to which the application relates and, if the judgment or order is for the payment of money, stating the amount originally due thereunder and the amount due thereunder at the date of the application; and-where the case falls within rule 2(1)(a), state the reasons for the delay in enforcing the judgment or order-What is sufficient reason for the delay in enforcing a judgment or order? Cases have held that there is sufficient reason for the delay where the delay in enforcing the judgment or order-is due to negotiations for settlement-is due to a subsequent breach of a settlement by instalments scheme by the judgment debtor-It is surely not in the public interest to insist the Judgment creditor proceed to make the guarantors bankrupts while the 1st defendant is paying the debt by instalments- 1 Stay of proceedings pending arbitration notwithstanding insolvency of a party to the arbitration and co-defendants who are not parties to the arbitration-Whether an arbitration agreement remains valid if one party becomes insolvent-Whether the arbitration agreement is contrary to the objectives of the insolvency regime and against public interest under section 4 and/or section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005-Whether a stay of the plaintiffs’ suit should be granted as the Second to Sixth defendants are not parties to the arbitration agreement-Whether a stay of the plaintiffs’ suit should be granted if there are no dispute necessitating reference to arbitration-section 10 of the AA 2005-sections 6[1] and [2] of the Singapore’s International Arbitration Act-in order to get a stay under section 10 of the AA 2005 has to prove-There is an arbitration agreement between the parties;-The proceedings are in respect of a matter that is subject to the arbitration agreement;-The defendants have not taken any other steps in the proceedings; and-The arbitration agreement is not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed-section 4 of the AA 2005-Therefore, pursuant to sections 4 and 10 of the AA 2005, an arbitration agreement will not be enforceable in Malaysia if-The arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed; or-The arbitration agreement is contrary to public policy or the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of Malaysia-sections 6[2] and 11 of the Singapore’s IAA-even though a winding up of a company has the effect of terminating agreements which the liquidator may not want to affirm and continue with, the arbitration agreement would survive such a termination.-there are certain subject matters that are not arbitrable under the law.-The Court of Appeal held that subject matters that are not arbitrable under the law include the grant of a dissolution of marriage, orders with respect to adoption, judicial review matters involving certiorari and mandamus, contempt of court, registration and expunging of patent and other intellectual property rights, order for sale under the National Land Code, issues arising out of liquidation, judicial management and receivership under the Companies Act 2016, undue preference of creditors and fraudulent trading under section 540 of the Companies Act 2016. [See Peninsula Education (Setia Alam)-There is a presumption of arbitrability despite the existence of distinct statutory provisions-It is not an “insolvency dispute” because to be an “insolvency dispute”, the dispute must arise from the operation of the statutory provisions of the insolvency regime per se-No financial ability to engage in an expensive arbitration as a ground to refuse a stay?-It is trite law that an arbitration agreement must be given effect to by a court once the pre-conditions for a stay are satisfied. After granting a stay, then only the court examines whether a non-party to the arbitration agreement is entitled to stay the related court proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration or stay/ restrain by injunction the arbitration hearing pending the outcome of the related court proceedings on ground of avoiding duplicity or inconsistent outcomes between arbitration and court proceedings.-Under section 10[1] AA 2005, once the preconditions set out in section 10[1] are satisfied the court is required to grant a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration. There is no discretion not to grant. The discretion that had existed under section 6 of the prior Arbitration Act 1952 [“AA 1952”] has been taken away by section 10[1] AA 2005-The presence of co-defendants who are not parties to the arbitration agreement is not a relevant factor on whether a stay of suit against Aturan should be granted-The fact that the Liquidators have chosen to sue additional defendants in the form of the Second to Sixth defendants, who are not parties to 1 Purchase of shares – The Plaintiff claims – had paid substantial sums of monies to the 1st and 2nd Defendants or through the 3rd to 6th Defendants to purchase shares in a public listed company known as Kumpulan Jetson Berhad – Plaintiff suggests – Defendants did not transfer the shares. O.24, r.3 or 7 – Discovery of documents – not allowed if it is shown to be a fishing expedition – Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks to find documents as to what happened to the said funds and how they were utilized to support its claim against the 3rd to 6th Defendants. Elements for an order for discovery – There must be a "document" – The document must be "relevant" – The document must be or have been in the "possession, custody or power" of the party against whom the order for discovery is sought – the application of discovery should only be allowed if it is an issue of relevance to the claim at hand. Order 24 rule 8 Rules of Court – The order for discovery should only be allowed if it is necessary. Whether it is necessary – The ultimate test – Whether discovery is necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or for saving costs. 1 Civil Procedure — Preliminary Issues of Law — Application under Order 14A, Rules of Court 2012 — Application under Order 33 Rule 2 and/or Rule 5, Rules of Court 2012 — Striking Out — Dismissal of Claim — Pleadings — Order 18 Rule 7(1) ROC 2012 1 Limitation of Actions — Statute of Limitation — Section 6 of Limitation Act 1953 — Claim Statute-Barred — Date Cause of Action Arose 1 Tort & Professional Negligence — Negligence — Auditor's Negligence — Causation-Duty of Care — Legal Nexus— Damages 1 Company Law & Insolvency — Winding Up — Liquidator (Locus Standi) — Audited Financial Statements (AFS) — Whether Liquidator may commence action based on Audited Reports 1 EVIDENCE: Without prejudice communications – Admissibility – Section 23 Evidence Act 1950 – Whether any exceptions apply – Whether communications disclose unambiguous impropriety – High threshold – Impropriety must be clear on face of communication – Non-response insufficient – Whether court is functus officio – Prior exposure of material – Doctrine of finality -–Whether unmarked communications privileged – High threshold not met –- Privilege maintained 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Limited or temporary nature - Application for - Stay of proceedings pending the determination before another court - Stay of proceedings pending outcome of post-winding up action - Consideration in granting a temporary stay - Whether the test of special circumstances apply - Whether the rare and compelling circumstances test apply - Efficient and fair resolution of the dispute as a whole - Whether there is a risk of conflicting findings - Ready for trial after delays - Whether application ought to be allowed 1 summary judgment application-In an Order 14 application the burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants-The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants. It is not enough for the defendants to make bare allegations or give a mere general denial of a debt-If an alleged triable issue is contradicted or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents the defendant’s alleged triable issue must be rejected-Certificate of Indebtedness-A certificate of indebtedness issued in accordance with the express provisions of the contract which provide that the certificate is final and conclusive of the matters stated therein is final and conclusive evidence of the amount in the absence of any manifest error on the certificate; and-The plaintiff has no further obligation to produce statements of account to prove the debt in an application for summary judgment-The certificate of indebtedness was not issued in accordance with the express provisions of the contract. An instances of non-compliance would be when the certificate of indebtedness was not signed by an officer of the plaintiff as stated in the contract; or-There is a manifest error in respect of the amounts stated on the certificate of indebtedness; or-There is fraud. 1 Interlocutory Injunction-American Cynamid case requirements- Whether there is a serious issue to be tried-Alleged transfer of shares obtained fraudulently- Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the Plaintiff if interlocutory relief is refused and the Plaintiff ultimately succeeds- Can no undertaking as to damages be fatal? - Where the balance of convenience lies pending trial. 1 Striking out – First & 9th Defendant filed to strike out Plaintiff’s claim – Whether former Director has locus standi to act in a derivative action on behalf of the company – Whether the former Director has sufficient interest in continuing the claim. 1 Withdraw application – Interim order – remain a Director – Defendants – withdraw application with liberty to file fresh – Whether it is fair for the First and 9th Defendants to be given the liberty to file fresh? 1 Struck out – Without liberty to file fresh – Merits of Defendants defence will be dealt with in trial. 1 Contempt of Court – Leave to commence committal proceedings – Alleged false statements in affidavits – Prima facie threshold – Standard of proof – Whether mere falsity sufficient – Court’s duty at leave stage – Liberty of individual – Federal Constitution art 5 – Order 52 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Contract – Misrepresentation – Pre-contractual representations – Entire agreement clause – Exclusion of prior agreements and representations – Collateral contract – Evidence Act 1950 ss.92(a) and 92(b) – No sufficient evidence of binding collateral contract – Variance claims – Contractual notice requirements – Non-compliance with prescribed timeline – “Without prejudice” communications – Evidence Act 1950 s.23 – Inadmissible in absence of concluded settlement – Documents in Part B do not override “without prejudice” privilege – No clear admission of liability – Counterclaim – Alleged unaccounted goods – Burden of proof not discharged. 1 Civil Procedure - Summary judgment – O.14 Rules of Court 2012 – Financing facilities and guarantees – Default – Bare denials and unproven forgery allegations – No bona fide triable issues – Summary judgment allowed with costs 1 assessment of damages-consent judgment-assessment of damages and account for profits-special damages must be specifically pleaded-claim for diminution in the share value is barred by the “reflective loss” principle-general damages and an account of profits are alternative remedies and the aggrieved party is required to elect which remedy to pursue-no action lies at the suit of a member suing in that capacity to make good a diminution in the value of his shareholding, where it is merely a reflection of the loss suffered by the company-a plaintiff can obtain Judgment for both general damages and an account of profits but he must at execution stage elect which to enforce-order granting the respondent both damages and an account of profits had to be set aside. The respondent would have to elect the one or the other-a party should in general not be required to elect between remedies unless and until he was able to make an informed choice-the authorities make it clear that damages and an account of profits are alternative remedies and the aggrieved party is required to elect which remedy to pursue-A corporate plaintiff cannot be granted aggravated damages-only two categories where exemplary damages can be awarded. The two categories are-oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the Government; or-where the defendant’s conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff’- 1 Application for Summary Judgment - Order 14, Rule 1 ROC 2012 – An agreement entered between the Plaintiff and the Buyer guaranteed by the Defendant – Buyer defaulted on repayment schedule – The Plaintiff claims for the repayment and applied for Summary Judgment – Claims against the principal debtor and guarantor in a different suit – Whether court should examine agreements entered into between parties to ascertain rights and obligations of parties - Whether liability of Defendant has been established – Whether there were triable issues warranting a full trial - There exists a settlement agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant - The Court held that the Defendant is bound to carry out his legal obligations. Application is allowed with costs. 1 Insurance Contract - Financial Services Act 2013 Schedule 9 - Pre-contractual duty of disclosure - Material non-disclosure - Deliberate and reckless misrepresentation - Left ventricular hypertrophy - Echocardiogram findings - Medical practitioner insurance proposer/applicant - Statutory presumption paragraph 7(8) - Underwriting decision - Policy voidance - Waiting Period exclusion clause - Signs and symptoms during exclusion period - Lymphadenopathy radiological findings - CT Urography report - Document tampering - Altered dates - Breach of utmost good faith - Fraudulent claim - Estoppel and waiver arguments - Expert medical testimony - Unrebutted evidence 1 Order 20 rule 4(2) ROC 2012 allows a court to order an amendment made under rule 1(1) or rule 3(1) - which allows amendments to be made without leave of court before the pleadings are deemed to be closed - to be struck out if the court is satisfied that if an application for leave to make the amendment in question had been made under rule 5 at the date when the amendment was made under rule 1(1) or rule 3(1) leave to make the amendment would have been refused-Order 20 rule 4(2) ROC 2012 reads as follows-‘2) Where the Court hearing an application under this rule is satisfied that if an application for leave to make the amendment in question had been made under rule 5 at the date when the amendment was made under rule 1(1) or rule 3(1) leave to make the amendment or part of the amendment would have been refused, it shall order the amendment or that part to be struck out-“It is a guiding principle of cardinal importance on the question of amendment that, generally speaking, all such amendments ought to be made for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings or of correcting any defect or error in any proceedings.”-Meaning of ‘prejudice’ that cannot be compensated by costs-“Prejudice”, in the context of amendment applications, cannot mean that if the amendment is allowed, the chances of success of the litigation of the affected party will be severely diminished. “Prejudice” simply means that if the amendment is allowed, the party affected will be unable to pursue or defend the suit-typo can be cured by the court under Order 2 rule 1(1) ROC 2012 1 Civil Procedure — Action — Discontinuance of — Application for discontinuance of action with liberty to file afresh —— Matters to consider in granting discontinuance of action — Plaintiff has attempted to backtrack and repair its case through the filing of new documents without any reasonable reasons — Whether plaintiff / defendants dominus litis — Whether application to discontinue action ought to be allowed — Court allowed application but without liberty to file afresh — Rules of Court 2012 O 21 r 3(1) 1 Civil Procedure - Section 540 Companies Act - Whether there was fraudulent trading perpetrated by the Defendants - Whether the loan received by the Defendant was in contravention of the Moneylenders Act 1951 1 Civil Procedure - Insurance claim under Contractors' All Risk Policy - Whether policy jacket was ever given to the Plaintiff - Whether there was any complaint by the Plaintiff of not having knowledge of the contents of the Policy Jacket when the Defendant repudiated the claim - Whether the Policy Schedule and Policy Jacket formed the entire policy - Whether the Plaintiff is bound by Special Exclusion 1 Company Law — Derivative action — Directors — Fiduciary duties — Breach of duties — Sections 213 and 218 of the Companies Act 2016 — Whether director breached duties by diverting corporate opportunities, assets, and business to a competing entity — Use of forged documents and non-disclosure to co-shareholder — Whether conduct was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or in breach of duty of fidelity— Companies Act 2016, s.213, s.218, & s.351. Company Law — Derivative action — Officers — Senior employees — Duty of fidelity — Whether senior managers, entrusted with strategic roles and confidential information, owed fiduciary duties — Participation in a scheme to divert employer's business to a new company — Knowing assistance in breach of director's duties — Liability as accessories — Whether senior officers acted honestly and reasonably — Whether court ought to excuse breach — Defence rejected for knowing participation in a scheme detrimental to the company — Companies Act 2016, s.581. 1 Damages — Compensation — Loss of profits — Assessment of damages for breach of fiduciary duty — Use of historical profit averages as a benchmark for past and future losses — Compensation for assets transferred at a gross undervalue — Loss of goodwill — Exemplary damages — Applicability in breach of fiduciary duty cases — Whether defendant's conduct was cynical, calculated, and merited punishment — Principles in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 applied — Award to punish wrongdoer and deter others. 1 The 2 Health Questions are 2 separate questions that are independent of each other. They appear in two separate paragraphs and each requires a separate answer. This interpretation is supported by the fact that a question mark (?) is used at the end of each Health Question, which signifies the end of each Health Question-Public Bank does not owe any duty of care to advise the Deceased on his MDTA insurance policy-An insured’s duty to disclose material information to an insurer constitutes a duty which exists independently of any proposal form. The insurer need not ask for the information-The insurer is entitled to rely on the answers provided in the proposal form before issuing the policy and there is no duty on the insurer to investigate the answers provided by the insured-A contract of insurance is one that imposes a mutual duty on the parties to it to act uberrima fides [or in its genitive form uberrimae fides] [Latin for "utmost good faith"] towards each other. The insured must make full disclosure of all material facts. It is not for him or her to decide in his or her own mind what is material. It does not matter whether the insurer asks any questions of the insured. The duty is on the insured to make full disclosure of material facts within his knowledge-The common law duty of disclosure on the part of a person purchasing an insurance policy was codified in Malaysia in the Insurance Act 1996 which has now been repealed by the FSA [which replaced several existing laws to consolidate regulation under a single framework] which lays down the duty of disclosure for all insurance contracts-The Insurance Act 1996 and now the FSA have restricted to a certain extent the right of insurers to use the common law principle of uberrima fides to repudiate a policy of life insurance for misrepresentation. In essence, the FSA’s restriction is based on whether the contract of life insurance has been in effect for a period of two years or less or more than two years-For a consumer insurance contract of life insurance which has been effected for a period of two years or less, if a misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, a licensed insurer may avoid the consumer insurance contract and refuse all claims-Where a contract of life insurance has been in effect for a period of more than two years during the lifetime of the insured, such a contract shall not be avoided by a licensed life insurer on the ground that a statement made or omitted to be made in the proposal for insurance or in a report of a doctor, referee, or any other person, or in a document leading to the issue of the life policy, was inaccurate or false or misleading unless the insurer shows that the statement was on a material matter or suppressed a material fact and that it was fraudulently made or omitted to be made by the policy owner or the insured-Deliberate or reckless misrepresentation is defined in Schedule 9 Part 2 paragraph 7(4) of the FSA-It is trite that a person is bound by his signature on a document and the terms therein regardless of whether he is ignorant of the language it is written in or whether he has read the document 1 CONTRACT: Subscription agreements – Whether 1st defendant breached agreements by failing to redeem preference shares and pay dividends 1 COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS: Whether redemption of preference shares and payment of dividends would breach Companies Act 2016 1 Contract — Breach — Agreement — Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants — Interpretation of agreement — Plaintiff claimed for profits and principal sum from the Defendants — Whether the Defendants are not obliged to pay the profits and principal sum claimed by the Plaintiff if the First Defendant is not profitable — Intention of the parties construing the Agreement — Whether agreement signed by parties was loan agreement or investment agreement — Whether the Defendants had breached their obligation under agreement — Whether agreement was illegal — Moneylenders Act 1951 1 Civil procedure - Whether the Defendants have conspired jointly to defraud the Plaintiff - Conspiracy claims 1 Order 14 Rule 1, Rules of Court 2012 – Summary Judgment Application – Claim for breach of contract of the Sale Shares of a private company - Whether damages to be assessed for specific performance in addition or substitution to breach of contract - Whether Defendant raised triable issues so as to render granting Summary Judgment unjustified - Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance – Section 11(1)© of the Specific Reliefs Act 1950 – it would be just and equitable to grant Summary Judgment for specific performance of the Share Sale Agreement. 1 Friendly Loan Agreement - Evidence Act 1950 Sections 91, 92, 103 - Burden of proof - Document authenticity - Signature forgery allegations - Cash withdrawal RM3.5 million - Bank meeting attendance - Direct evidence evaluation - Contemporaneous documentation - Independent witness testimony - Photographic evidence - Metadata verification - WhatsApp communications - Credible evidence assessment - Repayment acknowledgment - Digital manipulation defence - Parol evidence rule - Non-signatory liability - Joint and several liability - Collateral oral agreements - Coordinated legal strategy - Pre-emptive counterclaims - Circumstantial evidence 1 Damage insurance indemnity claim – Road traffic accident – Where insurer alleged fraudulent claim – Breach of contract – Negligence – Conflicting forensic expert evidence – Probability based on totality of evidence – Notice to agent constitutes valid notice to insurer – Burden of proof to show notification not made within required period – Corroboration of witnesses and contemporaneous documents – Whether minor discrepancies in witness’s testimonies would undermine credibility or narratives – No material discrepancies – Whether inconsistencies go to root of claim – The principle of utmost good faith in insurance contracts – Where allegation was made with no contrary evidence – Burden of proof of Fraud – Absence of election under insurance policy 1 Order 14 Rule 1, Rules of Court 2012 – Summary Judgment Application – Recovery of debt under financing facility against the borrower and guarantor - Whether defendants raised triable issues to merit going for trial - admission of the Defendants means Defendants are estopped from denying their knowledge of the Charge, the Security Agreement, the Additional Letter of Offer & Additional Letter of Offer 2 – no issues have been raised concerning the authenticity of the signatures – Defendant’s denial constitutes bare denial - the proof of posting of the Notices was duly exhibited - the Certificate of Indebtedness issued by the Plaintiff constitutes conclusive evidence – No Triable issues - Summary Judgment granted. 1 CONTRACT LAW: Credit facilities – Summary judgment application – Breach of credit facility terms – Whether plaintiff breached terms by suspending credit facility – Whether credit terms waived through conduct – Whether late interest charges contractually enforceable – Whether delivery order discrepancies affect liability – Whether guarantee letter valid and enforceable – Whether account stated principle applicable – Whether non-query of account creates estoppel 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment – Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 – Triable issues – Whether defendant raised valid triable issues – Whether prima facie case established – Whether burden of proof satisfied – Striking out pleadings – Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 – Whether counterclaim obviously unsustainable – Whether pleadings frivolous or vexatious – Whether counterclaim constitutes abuse of process 1 GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY: Personal guarantee – Joint and several liability – Directors' guarantee – Whether guarantee letter defective or unenforceable – Whether variation of terms discharges guarantors – Whether guarantors bound by signed guarantee despite incomplete information 1 COMMERCIAL LAW: Building materials supply – Credit reporting agencies – Disclosure of default information – Whether reporting to CTOS and credit agencies wrongful – Whether contractual consent to disclosure valid – Whether damages recoverable for adverse credit reports 1 Interlocutory injunction – Erinford injunction – Corporate dispute – Share transfers alleged void for want of consideration – Beneficial ownership – Subsequent joint venture transfer – Appointment/removal of directors – Change of company secretary and registered address – Bank mandates and signatories – Use of company funds for legal fees – Internal management decisions – Serious question to be tried – Balance of convenience – Adequacy of damages – Preservation of status quo – Delay and laches – Speculative risk insufficient – Equity aids the vigilant – Court declined to interfere with corporate management – Application and Erinford injunction dismissed 1 CONTRACT LAW: Settlement agreements – Effect of settlement in extinguishing prior claims – Specific performance of share sale agreement – Whether settlement agreement operates as complete bar to relitigating antecedent breaches – Whether alleged breaches of put option agreement precluded by subsequent settlement – Whether parties estopped from challenging arrangements previously accepted – Summary judgment applications – Whether bare assertions without supporting evidence constitute triable issues – Whether defendants' challenges amount to afterthoughts to avoid contractual obligations 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment under Order 14 – Test for triable issues – Whether court must determine not only if issue raised but whether issue is triable – Whether assertions lacking precision or inconsistent with contemporary documents should be rejected – Service of notices – Whether service effected in accordance with contractual provisions – Burden of proof regarding proper service – Whether bare denials unsupported by evidence constitute triable issues 1 COMPANY LAW: Share transactions – Locus standi of contracting parties – Whether party to share sale agreement has standing to enforce contractual rights – Whether knowledge of share ownership structure by defendants creates estoppel – Authority to deal with shares registered under designated parties' names 1 her signature on the Share Transfer Form was forged-burden to prove forgery-plaintiff failed to call a handwriting expert-The execution of the Share Transfer Form and delivery of the certificate and transfer for registration are sufficient to divest the plaintiff of her interest-Whether the transfer of the plaintiff’s 750,000 shares in PYSB to the 1st defendant is valid;-Whether the plaintiff is a nominee shareholder holding the 750,000 shares of PYSB on behalf of Naxus and whether the nominee arrangement is illegal; and-Whether the appointment of Nik Ahmad Amin bin Nik Man as a director of PYSB in the EGM on 12-05-2023 is valid-It is only when the shares are registered in the name of a nominee for an illegal purpose or in order to defraud a public authority, that the owner may be precluded from asserting his beneficial ownership of the shares-It is trite law that a nominee arrangement per se whereby a person holds shares on trust for the real owner is not illegal-In a nominee arrangement there is a resulting trust relationship between the real owner and the registered shareholder; the registered shareholder being the trustee, and the real owner, the beneficiary-The principle that a nominee arrangement whereby a person holds shares on trust for the real owner is valid-“A share is movable and not immovable property. Legal title in a share is rested in the person to whom the share is allotted or transferred and whose name is on the register of members in respect of that share. It is also possible for a person to have shares registered in the name of a nominee, who will hold as trustee for him-It is trite that the court will not condone or lend its hand to a party who takes advantage of its own wrongdoings and comes to court without clean hands-Sections 56, 60A to 60D of the Companies Act 2016 mandate disclosure of beneficial owners to shares-sections 60A to 60D of the Companies Act 2016 are new provisions inserted via section 3 of the Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 [Act A1701], and came into force only on 01-04-2024-64. The saving provision in section 31 of the Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 [Act A1701] states that the amendment provisions are not to have any retrospective effect at all-that the plaintiff has no right to call and hold the EGM. Once the plaintiff had signed the Share Transfer Form and submitted the same to PYSB for registration, she is estopped from exercising any further right as a shareholder 1 claim for fire consequential loss-that a plaintiff bringing an action for damages bears the burden to prove that he has suffered the damage and prove the quantum of the damages that are claimed-Plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for them to prove their damage; it is not enough to write down the particulars, and, so to speak, throw them at the head of the court, saying: ‘This is what I have lost, I ask you to give me these damages’. They have to prove it-Quantum of alleged-18. Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950-The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case-The court may presume—(a)…(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it-19. The failure of PW6 to adduce supporting documents can only give rise to an adverse inference under section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950 that such evidence would affect the plaintiff adversely 1 Contract — Breach — Agreement — Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants — Interpretation of agreement — Plaintiff claimed for profits and principal sum from the Defendants — Whether the Defendants are not obliged to pay the profits and principal sum claimed by the Plaintiff if the First Defendant is not profitable — Construction of clause — Intention of the parties construing the Agreement — Whether agreement signed by parties was loan agreement or investment agreement — Whether the Defendants had breached their obligation under agreement — Whether agreement was illegal — Moneylenders Act 1951 1 Recovery of outstanding debt by the creditor against the borrower and guarantor – Order 92 Rule 4 of Rules of Court 2012 – Application by guarantor for stay of proceeding pending foreclosure proceeding of the Charged property - whether exist special circumstances – balance of justice - whether guarantor can discharge liability under the Guarantees – whether guarantor stood as “Principal Debtor” or “Social Debtor” – Section 5(3) of the Insolvency Act 1967 only applies to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings against a social guarantor - no prohibition against the financial institutions availing themselves to concurrent proceedings to recover the outstanding debts due. Application dismissed. 1 Civil Procedure - Plaintiff's claim for a sum under the profit guarantee in Shareholders Agreement - company secretarial document represents the best evidence - Parties are bound by their pleadings - Liability under the profit guarantee 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery – Documentary discovery – Scope of discovery in commercial litigation – Whether documents must be in possession, custody or power of party against whom discovery sought – Whether discovery application constitutes fishing expedition – Whether former shareholder has standing to seek corporate documents – Whether documents from wound-up company should be sought from liquidator rather than former directors – Whether burden of proof requirements satisfied – Whether alternative remedies available through proper procedural channels 1 COMPANY LAW: Corporate personality – Wound-up companies – Document custody and preservation – Whether corporate documents belong with court-appointed liquidator upon winding up – Whether former directors retain possession of wound-up company's documents – Whether separate legal entity principle applies to document discovery – Whether corporate veil principles affect discovery rights 1 CONSPIRACY: Commercial conspiracy – Corporate misappropriation – Burden of proof in conspiracy claims – Whether discovery necessary to establish conspiracy allegations – Whether systematic exclusion from corporate operations evidences conspiracy – Whether coordinated actions between defendants proven through documentary evidence 1 EVIDENCE: Burden of proof – Shifting of evidential burden – Whether plaintiffs must prove case independently – Whether defendants required to assist in building case against themselves – Whether mere allegations in pleadings sufficient to establish possession of documents – Application of Evidence Act 1950 sections 101-103 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out pleadings – Order 18 Rule 19(1)(d) Rules of Court 2012 – Abuse of court process – Whether claim constituted attempt to relitigate issues already decided in previous suit – Whether court had jurisdiction to vary or amend final judgment – Whether res judicata doctrine barred fresh suit – Whether cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel applicable – Whether existence of counterclaim prevented striking out of abusive claim 1 RES JUDICATA: Cause of action estoppel – Issue estoppel – Finality in litigation – Whether same issues concerning invoices already raised and decided in previous suit – Whether attempt to relitigate matters conclusively determined – Whether party seeking to challenge correctness of decision on issue determined in previous final judgment – Application of maxims interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium and nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa 1 COURT'S JURISDICTION: Power to vary final judgment – Functus officio doctrine – Whether court lacking jurisdiction to grant reliefs that would vary or amend judgment affirmed on appeal – Whether lower court could amend order affirmed by higher court – Whether subsequent High Court could relitigate same matter to negate or modify perfected order of prior High Court 1 ABUSE OF PROCESS: Collateral attack on final judgment – Whether claim seeking consequential reliefs actually attempt to undermine enforceability of judgment – Whether transparent attempt to relitigate same issue through different legal mechanism – Whether filing fresh suit after exhausting all appeal avenues constituted impermissible second bite at cherry – Whether old wine in new bottle situation 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment – Order 14 applications – Prima facie case establishment – Burden of proof shifting to defendant – Whether defendant has triable defence – Whether bare denials constitute genuine defence – Sufficiency of documentary evidence 1 MONEYLENDING: Licensed moneylending – Default in payment obligations – Service of demand notice – Compliance with Moneylenders Act 1951 – Whether proper service of loan agreements required – Whether statutory requirements satisfied – Order 79 Rules of Court 2012 compliance 1 CONTRACT LAW: Guarantee agreements – Execution and validity of guarantees – Corporate and individual guarantees – Authentication of signatures – Whether guarantors bound by signed agreements – Whether knowledge evidenced by signing – Service of guarantee documents 1 CONTRACT: Quantum meruit claim - Claim by sub-contractor against developer for sub-contract work completed - No contractual relationship between sub-contractor and developer - Whether section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 applies - Whether there is unjust enrichment 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment – Order 14 application – Requirements for summary judgment – Whether plaintiff has satisfied preliminary requirements – Whether defendants have raised triable issues – Standard of proof for establishing triable defence – Whether mere assertions constitute credible evidence – Whether documentary evidence establishes clear liability 1 CONTRACT LAW: Settlement agreements – Validity and enforceability – Whether parties bound by settlement terms – Whether subsequent settlement supersedes original disputes – Estoppel by settlement – Whether parties can reopen settled issues – Duress and coercion – Whether settlement agreement signed under duress 1 ESTOPPEL: Doctrine of estoppel – Application to settlement agreements – Whether estoppel can override illegality – Requirements of inducement and detriment – Whether parties estopped from reopening settled matters 1 MONEYLENDING AND ILLEGALITY: Alleged illegal moneylending – Whether loan arrangement contravenes Moneylenders Act 1951 – Burden of proof for establishing illegality – Whether excessive interest rates render transaction illegal –Whether illegality must be established by credible evidence rather than mere assertion 1 Transfer of action - Order 4 rule 1 and Order 57 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 – From High Court to another – Application to transfer suit from Kuala Lumpur High Court to Penang High Court – Whether transfer application ought to be allowed – Whether just and convenient for civil suit to be transferred – Whether cause of action occurred in Kuala Lumpur or Penang – Parties in both suits are different – the legal questions to be determined in both suits are quite different – disputes do not arise from a same transaction – there will be little or no possibility of the Courts arriving at conflicting decisions at all – no common questions of law. Application dismissed with costs. 1 Order 14 Rule 1, Rules of Court 2012 – Summary Judgment Application for outstanding sums under a Margin Facility - Defendant’s failure to make payment of outstanding sums and to maintain the Equity Ratio prescribed under the Facility– Defendant fails to remedy the breaches – Whether there was delay and/or negligence in the forced sale of the Mortgaged Securities – The Plaintiff has absolute discretion in carrying out of the sale as provided in the terms of the Facility contractually agreed by the Defendant - the Defendant failed to demonstrate any bona fide triable issues to merit the claims to go for trial. Summary Judgment granted. 1 Striking out of claim-Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012-Whether a case is plain or obvious does not depend upon the length of time it takes to argue the case, but that when the case argued on the affidavit evidence available, it becomes plain and obvious that the case has no chance of success-Where the affidavit evidence discloses a dispute of facts, such facts must be analysed and if they are found to be inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or inherently improbable in themselves, the court is entitled to reject those facts and proceed upon the undisputed contemporaneous documentary evidence. A trial of the action will not add anything more-The court must submit the evidence to critical examination. If that leads to the conclusion that the action could not possibly succeed it should be struck out- The law is clear that in the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent is not personally liable for the sums incurred by his client the principal based on section 183 of the Contracts Act 1950-There are only three presumptions that an agent is personally liable. These are where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad, or where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal, or where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued-The only way for the agent to avoid the operation of the three presumptions would be to contract out of the presumption of such personal liability either by way of express words, or by implication or inference from documents used, other evidence and surrounding circumstances-Although limbs [b] and [c] of section 183 of the Contracts Act 1950 used the word “and”-each of the limbs stands by itself- 1 Interlocutory - Bill of Costs - Application for taxation filed by the Plaintiff's former solicitors. 1 refund-under a Share Sale Agreement-non-fulfilment of Conditions Precedent-the doctrine of business efficacy-a representation and/or warranty and/or implied term-Legal Effect of the non-fulfilment of a condition precedent-It is trite law that the non-fulfilment of a condition precedent will result in the contract being discharged, either automatically or at the election of one of the parties. A contract shall not take effect unless and until the condition precedent is fulfilled-When an agreement has an ‘entire agreement’ clause, it precludes the reception by the Court of any collateral promise so as to defeat the expressed intention of the parties contained in a contract. It also excludes claims of oral representations when such claims are contrary to expressed covenants in an agreement 1 Section 4.03 of the Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-Section 4.03 of the Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.03 of the Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum are to be repaid in full at the end of the investment period-Investment Agreement-moneylending whereby a lender lends money with interest charged-Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-38. The case before me is not a loan agreement. The plaintiffs did not lend monies to Ace Credit. In fact, it is Ace Credit which is the licensed moneylender as stated and represented in the Agreement at Recital A. And at Recital B it is stated that Ace Credit agreed on the plaintiffs investing in Ace Credit- 1 ivil Procedure — Striking out — Order 18 r 19 Rules of Court 2012 — Inherent jurisdiction — Plain and obvious test — Whether statement of claim discloses reasonable cause of action — Abuse of process — Frivolous, vexatious or speculative pleadings — Lumping of defendants — Failure to plead material facts — Claim struck out 1 Equity — Fiduciary duties — Corporate opportunity — Dishonest assistance — Accessorial liability — Elements — Requirement of strict pleading — Whether nominee shareholder or nominee director sufficient — Mere association insufficient 1 Tort — Conspiracy (unlawful means) — Elements — Agreement — Intention to injure — Overt acts — Damage — Strict pleading requirements — Familial relationship — Whether sufficient to infer conspiracy Pleading — Fraud and dishonesty — Strict particularisation — General allegations insufficient — Inference versus fact — Failure to plead dishonesty, assistance and causal link 1 Evidence — Affidavit evidence — Interlocutory applications — Inherently improbable allegations — No mini-trial at striking-out stage 1 Termination – Whether the Plaintiff has lawfully terminated the facilities granted to the 1st Defendant – Whether the guarantors are discharged due to the alleged variation of the facilities. 1 Maturity Date – Whether the original maturity date of the 63 trade bills had been extended – What was the extended maturity date of the 63 trade bills – Whether the 180-day extension of time granted by the Plaintiff, concerns only the 4 trade bills and if so, what was their extended maturity date. 1 Guarantors Liability – Whether the guarantors are liable for the debts of the 1st Defendant – Whether the sums claimed have exceeded the sum limited by the guarantee. 1 Force Majure – Does the COVID-19 pandemic excuse the Defendants? 1 Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with the investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-22- Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.04 of the Investment Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum is to be repaid upon early cancellation- I hold the Investment Agreement is not a moneylending transaction-The Investment Agreement states clearly that it’s an Investment Agreement whereby the investor is entitled to a fixed return per year for 5 years and repayment of his Investment Sum at the end of the 5-year period or to be repaid upon early cancellation-“[34] Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions.”-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-10 OA. Where in any proceedings against any person, it is alleged that such person is a moneylender, the proof of a single loan at interest made by such person shall raise a presumption that such person is carrying on the business of moneylending, until the contrary is proved. 1 law on mareva injunction-sole purpose of a Mareva injunction was to prevent a plaintiff being cheated out of the proceeds of an action-For a Mareva application, there are three pre-requisites to satisfy before the court may issue a Mareva injunction-(a) the applicant must show that it has a good arguable case; -(b) that the defendants have assets within jurisdiction; and -(c) that there is a risk of the assets being removed before judgment could be satisfied.-The test for a ‘good arguable case’ is one which is more than barely capable of serious argument but not necessarily one which has to be better than 50% chance of success-lifting of corporate veil to hold persons and corporate entities liable for fraud-there subsists a long line of authority over the years in Malaysia which recognises that fraud, whether common law fraud or fraud in equity permits the court disregarding of the corporate personality-a ‘worldwide’ Mareva injunction may even be granted where the assets which are to be frozen are wholly located abroad or where some of the assets are within the jurisdiction and some are abroad-found that there was a risk of dissipation as the Court of Appeal found that there were inconsistencies in the documents and the defendant’s defence and affidavit-the defendant’s conduct was lacking in probity and honesty, thus, a real risk exists that the defendant would dissipate his assets-In determining whether there is a risk of assets being removed, lack of probity and honesty can be determining factors, in drawing a conclusion that there is such a risk of dissipation- 1 Contract — Restraint of trade — Clause in agency contract restricting agent’s spouse from being employed by a competitor — Automatic termination of agency agreement if spouse joins another insurance company — Whether such clause valid under section 28 Contracts Act 1950 — Restriction imposed on third party (spouse) — Clause declared void — Contracts Act 1950, s. 28 1 Civil Procedure — Preliminary issue — Validity of contractual clause raised before trial — Court directed determination under O 33 r 2 Rules of Court 2012 — Preliminary finding limited to clause only — No finding on liability or fiduciary breach — Other issues to proceed to trial — Rules of Court 2012, O 33 r 2 1 Civil Procedure — Injunction — Mandatory and prohibitory injunctions — Injunction against defendant to return the sheet piles and to stop the Defendants from disposing of the same sheet piles — disclosure of the whereabout of the sheet piles — Whether plaintiff had satisfied all conditions for grant of interim injunction to maintain status quo until suit between parties was determined — Whether plaintiff’s claim showed serious arguable and triable issues 1 Judgment after Full-Trial – Recovering of Deposit sum paid against a party who was never bound by contract – Deposit Sum was not disputed paid directly to the glove manufacturer’s bank account on the instruction of the contracting supplier. Who were the contracting parties to the contract of sale, whether there is a contractual relationship between parties and the corresponding legal obligation to refund the deposit & who owes a duty of care. No evidence to show that Plaintiff had a contractual relationship with the manufacturer – all matters dealing with the orders made by the supplier for the Plaintiff regardless the payment directly been made to the manufacturer – Plaintiff’s claim for cause of action has no merits – neither a trust relationship nor was there a fiduciary relationship created in the circumstances – no duty of care by the manufacturer to the buyer – no evidence to show that the manufacturer had received more that what it was entitled – no unjust enrichment enjoyed by the manufacturer – Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs. 1 Civil Procedure — Judgments and Orders — Setting aside — Judgment in default of appearance — Application to set aside — Whether delay was inordinate or contumelious — Whether defendant disclosed an arguable or meritorious defence — Balancing exercise between procedural default and substantive justice. 1 Time — Abridgement of time — Application for abridgement of time and setting aside JIDA filed in a single Notice of Application — Whether multiple reliefs can be combined in one application — Effect of failure to adhere to timelines. 1 Rules of Court 2012 — Non-compliance — Procedural objections — Whether procedural rules are "handmaidens" or "masters" of justice — Exercise of judicial discretion — Principles governing setting aside of default judgments. 1 Appellate Intervention — Appeal against decision of Deputy Registrar — Discretion not correctly exercised — Failure to consider merits of defence and nature of delay. 1 Contract — Share Sale Agreement — Contingent contract — Alleged failure of underlying basis of agreement — Claim for refund of RM6,000,000 — Breach — Alleged default — Failure to issue default notice. 1 ESTATE AGENCY LAW / CONTRACT LAW: Commission claims – Validity of marketing appointment letter – Admissibility under Stamp Act 1949 – Whether estate agency agreement falls under Item 4 or Item 22 of First Schedule – Whether unstamped document admissible – Whether consideration correctly stated as zero when commission amount uncertain at execution – Whether appointment letter invalid for non-compliance with Rule 102 of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Rules 1986 – Whether signature by Real Estate Negotiator instead of Registered Estate Agent renders agreement void – Whether appointment expired before sale completion – Whether appointment extended by conduct of parties – Whether delays attributable to agent – Whether agent procured the purchaser when letter of interest from different entity than ultimate purchaser – Whether different legal entity within same corporate group breaks chain of causation – Effective cause of sale – Whether commission calculated on gross selling price or net selling price after deductions – Whether commission payable before transfer of title completed 1 COMPANY LAW: Separate legal personality – Lifting/piercing of corporate veil – Parent company liability for subsidiary's contractual obligations – Concealment principle versus evasion principle – Whether normal parent company oversight and control justifies lifting corporate veil – Whether parent company received benefit from subsidiary's property disposal – Whether shared management personnel and common directors constitute improper control – Whether centralised legal and administrative services amount to abuse of corporate form – Whether board approval requirements demonstrate parent company control – Whether disposal of subsidiary shares for nominal consideration constitutes evasion of liability – Whether disposal part of legitimate corporate restructuring or scheme to evade commission obligation – Whether subsidiary with negative net assets sold at undervalue – Whether timing of disposal demonstrates intent to evade – Whether company interposed to defeat existing legal obligation – Whether fraud or unconscionable conduct established – Whether subsidiary was sham or façade company – Whether subsidiary had independent business operations and substance – Distinction between legitimate parent-subsidiary arrangements and abuse of corporate form – Whether consolidated financial reporting demonstrates benefit to parent – Whether regulatory disclosures to Bursa Malaysia demonstrate transparency 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Agreed issues to be tried – Whether parties bound by agreed issues – Whether issues not specifically pleaded may nevertheless be determined – Whether validity and admissibility of documents require explicit pleading – Whether non-compliance with appointment terms properly raised as defence 1 Limitation Act 1953 (Section 6(3)) – Has Plaintiff shown sufficient reason for delay? – Leave to Enforce Judgment After 6 Years – Delay in Enforcement – Judgment Execution – Can judgment be enforced after 6 years – Order 46 Rule 2 – Plaintiff - Summary judgment - 17 May 2016 for RM 4,283,777.98 plus interest and costs. – Foreclosure proceedings initiated – Property sold only on 11 June 2024 after 10 attempts – Delay justified due to foreclosure and insolvency proceedings – Plaintiff took reasonable steps to recover judgment sum. 1 Bankruptcy Proceedings – Insolvency Act 1967 (Sections 5(4), 105) – Does annulment of bankruptcy affect enforceability? – 1st and 3rd Defendants were wound up in 2016 – Proof of debt filed – Plaintiff claims RM 7.58 million still owed by 2nd Defendant as of January 2025 – Plaintiff initiated bankruptcy proceedings against 2nd Defendant, who had prior bankruptcies annulled under section 105 of the Insolvency Act – Annulment under section 105 does not extinguish debt; unlike discharge under section 35. 1 Prejudice to Defendant – Is the enforcement sum within the guarantee provided by the 2nd Defendant? – Only principal sum and costs can be enforced – Enforcement sum is within the amount guaranteed by 2nd Defendant – No unfair prejudice to 2nd Defendant – Plaintiff not inactive. 1 application for Interrogatories-a partner in a law firm-The information sought is privileged under section 126[1] of the Evidence Act of 1950-fiduciary duties-The interrogatories amount to a fishing expedition-The interrogatories are not necessary for the fair disposal of this matter-deposit was released to third parties-acted as stakeholder-Interrogatories is governed by Order 26 rule 1[3] ROC 2012-Interrogatories are not confined to matters which are in issue. They can extend to facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of the facts directly in issue-Interrogatories will be allowed if designed to obtain admissions of facts which will reduce the issues, shorten the length of trial and thus save costs-Section 126[1] of the Evidence Act only protects: (i) communications passing between a solicitor and his client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (ii) the contents or condition of any document which the solicitor became acquainted with in the course of his employment; and (iii) the advice given by the solicitor to his client-Legal professional privilege is of a limited character. It does not protect all confidential communications a man must necessarily make in order to obtain advice. The solicitor’s bank statements are not protected by section 126[1] of the Evidence Act from disclosure-The address to which a solicitor’s letter was sent to is not protected by section 126[1] of the Evidence Act from disclosure-The answers sought vide the Interrogatories are factual information relating to the release of the said Deposit. They are not legal advice or confidential information-Information such as the identity of recipients, payment dates, methods and bank details does not become privileged under section 126[1] of the Evidence Act simply because they passed through a firm of solicitors-On stakeholders it is trite-The manner in which the money is to be disposed of depends on the terms on which it is held.-When solicitors hold funds as stakeholders, they hold those funds as trustees and not in a contractual or quasi-contractual capacity.-‘If an estate agent or solicitor, being duly authorised in that behalf, receives a deposit ‘as stakeholder’, he is under a duty to hold it in medio pending the outcome of a future event. He does not hold it as agent for the vendor, nor as agent for the purchaser. He holds it as trustee for both to await the evidence-Any wrongful disbursement of stakeholder monies will give rise to the right of the beneficiary/owner to trace the stakeholder monies into the hands of anyone who acquired it-Interrogatories will be allowed to trace the stakeholder monies into the hands of anyone who acquired it 1 Contract – Formation – Implied contract – Sub-distribution agreement – Existence of binding agreement – Whether formed by conduct and correspondence – Letter of intent, appointment emails and letters of authorisation – Parties conducting themselves as distributor and sub-distributor over extended period – Whether agreement could be implied from facts – Termination – Reasonable notice – Implied term – Whether terminable on reasonable notice – Immediate termination without notice – Whether repudiatory breach – What constitutes reasonable notice – Factors considered – Duration of relationship, remaining term of customer contracts, need for orderly handover. 1 Tort – Conspiracy to injure – Unlawful means conspiracy – Elements to prove – Combination, intention to injure, unlawful acts, resultant loss – Suspicious sequence of events insufficient – Evidence falling short of proving concerted agreement on balance of probabilities – Distinction between commercial opportunism and targeted conspiracy 1 Company Law – Lifting corporate veil – When applicable – Fraud or impropriety required – Unity of interest and control insufficient without finding of fraud – Dominant figure controlling related companies – Corporate separateness upheld – Claim against third defendant personally dismissed 1 Damages – General damages – Assessment – Loss of distributorship asset – Basis of quantification – Business-value approach – Annual profit multiplier method – Use of audited financial statements – Average annual profit considered – Aggravating factors justifying enhanced award – Established track record, high barrier to entry, abrupt termination – Special damages – Strict proof required – Failure to substantiate with documentary evidence. 1 Evidence – Adverse inference– Failure to call material witnesses – Director of second defendant and executive director of first defendant – Inference that evidence would not support defendants’ case – Inference strengthening plaintiff’s case on termination and inter-company relationship – Evidence Act, s.114(g). 1 Limitation – Laches – Equitable defence – Whether applicable where statutory limitation period not expired – Suit filed within six-year limitation period – Delay of seven months not unreasonable – Defence rejected – Limitation Act 1953, s.6(1)(a). 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Transfer of proceedings – Application to transfer from one High Court to another – Order 57 Rule 1 of Rules of Court 2012 and Section 23 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Whether proceedings can be more conveniently or fairly tried in another court of coordinate jurisdiction – Whether defendant's place of residence sufficient ground for transfer – Whether related proceedings pending in another court warrant transfer – Whether forum conveniens considerations apply – Whether substantial nexus exists between related cases – Whether risk of inconsistent judicial decisions justifies transfer – Whether guarantor's liability independent of principal debtor's liability affects transfer application – Whether procedural incompatibility between writ actions and originating summons precludes consolidation 1 Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Setting aside, application for — Application filed beyond the 30-day time limit — Whether delay inordinate and inexcusable — Whether time should be abridged — Whether regularly obtained judgment should be set aside — Whether borrower’s chop on Friendly Loan Agreement forged — No contemporaneous document produced to corroborate allegation of forgery — The appropriate test for setting aside regularly obtained default judgment — Whether first defendant have real prospect of successfully defending the claim — Whether third defendant has an arguable or triable issue on the merits — Insolvency Act 1967, s.8(1)(a), s.38(1)(a) — Rules of Court 2012, O.13 r.7, O.13 r.8, O.19 r.9, O.34 r.1(1)(b), O.34 r.2(2), O.34 r.2(3) & O.42 r.13 — Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (United Kingdom), R.13.3(1) — Rules of Court 2021 (Singapore), O.3 r.2(a) — Companies Act 2016, s.196(1)(a), s.196(3), & s.198(1)(a). 1 Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Striking out – Prolix pleadings – Collective allegations against multiple defendants – Failure to plead material facts – Whether statement of claim discloses reasonable cause of action – Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 19 1 Torts – Fraud – Pleading – Requirement of particularity – Collective allegations – Failure to plead knowledge, intention and dishonesty – Whether pleading sustainable 1 Torts – Misrepresentation – Reliance – Multiple plaintiffs – Failure to plead individual reliance – Whether cause of action established 1 Striking out – O.18 r.19(1) Rules of Court 2012 – Counterclaim – Misappropriation and beneficial ownership claims – Proper plaintiff rule – Foss v Harbottle – Locus standi – Counterclaim Plaintiff neither registered nor beneficial shareholder – No reflective loss – s.347 Companies Act 2016 derivative action not complied with – Express concession of no standing – Resulting trust – Alleged funding from company’s arbitration proceeds – Presumption favouring funding entity – No contemporaneous documentary proof – Registered shareholders holding shares on trust for funding entity – Fatal non-joinder – Separate legal entity – Abuse of process – Counterclaim filed reactively. 1 INSURANCE LAW: Fire insurance – Fraudulent claim – Repudiation of insurance claim by insurer – Whether fire was incendiary and deliberately set by insured or with its connivance – Whether insured submitted false, exaggerated and fraudulent claim supported by forged invoices and delivery orders – Whether insured breached duty of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) – Whether insured suffered actual pecuniary loss where goods claimed were never paid for – Principle of indemnity – Whether insured could profit from insurance by claiming for goods never purchased – Whether insurer entitled to repudiate liability and forfeit all benefits under policy pursuant to fraud and wilful act clauses – Whether adjuster's preliminary assessment constituted binding admission entitling insured to recover alternative reduced sum – Whether finding of fraud taints entire claim including any reduced or alternative amount – Whether insured had financial motive to commit fraud – Whether insured breached duty of full and frank disclosure under policy conditions 1 EVIDENCE: Proof and authenticity of documents – Whether invoices and delivery orders classified as Part C documents could be admitted without calling maker to testify – Forensic handwriting analysis – Whether identical signatures on documents purportedly from two separate suppliers indicated forgery and fabrication – Whether unchallenged expert evidence entitled to significant weight – Adverse inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 – Whether failure to call material witnesses warranted drawing of adverse inference – Credibility of witnesses – Whether inconsistent and contradictory testimony on material issues rendered witnesses unreliable – Standard of proof for fraud in civil cases – Whether fraud to be proved on balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt 1 CONTRACT LAW: Insurance contract – Time limitation clause – Whether three-month contractual limitation period for commencing action after repudiation void under s 29 Contracts Act 1950 – Whether contractual clause imposing shorter time limit than statutory limitation period enforceable – Laches – Whether equitable doctrine of laches applicable to bar claim commenced within statutory six-year limitation period – Whether mere delay without demonstrated prejudice to defendant sufficient to constitute laches 1 INSURANCE LAW: Approbation and reprobation – Whether insurer precluded from challenging authenticity of documents examined during investigation process – Whether receiving and examining claim documents for investigation purposes constituted acceptance of genuineness – Whether insurer's duty to investigate entitled it to rely on findings of fabrication discovered through that investigation 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Security for costs – Applications under Order 23 Rules 1(1) and 1(2A) Rules of Court 2012 – Nominal plaintiff suing for benefit of another – Non-party contributing to plaintiff's costs in return for share of recovery – Whether plaintiff suing in representative capacity as executor exempt from security for costs – Whether delay in filing application should weigh against granting application – Whether non-party has contributed to plaintiff's costs in return for share of proceeds – Whether arrangement constitutes champerty and maintenance – Whether quantum of security should be reduced to avoid stifling litigation – Whether undertaking as to damages required for security for costs application 1 ESTATE ADMINISTRATION: Executor's capacity – Representative capacity of executor in litigation – Whether executor suing in representative capacity exempt from security for costs under Order 23 Rule 1(1)(b) – Whether estate has sufficient assets to satisfy potential costs order 1 Mareva Injunction - Post-judgment vs Pre-judgment distinction - Asset freeze application disguised as pre-judgment but in substance seeking enforcement of existing arbitral award - Procedural impropriety - Risk of dissipation - Material delay undermining urgency - Asset transfers 3-6 years before application - Knowledge during JDS proceedings yet 2-year delay - Balance of convenience - Multiplicity of proceedings - Abuse of process - Passive recipient defendant - Disproportionate consequences - Constructive trust as enforcement mechanism - Good arguable case satisfied but risk of dissipation failed 1 Summary Judgment - Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 - Joint and Several Guarantee - Defence of substitution of guarantor - Conditions precedent for substitution not fulfilled - Burden of proof on defendant - Bare assertions without documentary evidence insufficient - Afterthought defence - Certificate of Indebtedness - Conclusive evidence clause - Third party proceedings not a defence unless third party has discharged claim - Joint and several liability - Not discharged by death, bankruptcy or insolvency of co-guarantors - Freedom of contract - Parties bound by contractual terms. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Defendants requested for an extension of time - Leave to set aside the Judgment Default of appearance – Application made after 13 months after Judgement entered – Reasoning for delay to appoint solicitors - any explanation or extraneous circumstances – Was it sufficient as a business owners in a commerce industry - Do the Defendants have a meritorious defence – Did Plaintiff comply with the rules on service of the Writ- Was the judgement obtained regularly- Additional orders for mandamus order and a certiorari order is appropriate at this juncture. 1 Arbitration — Stay of proceedings — Application for stay under section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Mandatory nature of stay where valid arbitration agreement exists — Principles of "steps in proceedings". 1 Arbitration Agreement — Interpretation of dispute resolution clause — Clause covering disputes in connection with existence, validity, or termination of agreement. 1 Waiver and Election — Fact-sensitive assessment of conduct — Whether pre-action notice of termination constitutes waiver of arbitration rights — Effect of reservation of rights. 1 Civil Procedure — Stay Pending Arbitration — Rules of Court 2012, Order 69 Rule 10 — Meaning of "taking steps in the proceedings". 1 Delay — Assessment of delay in filing stay application — Computation of time from entry of appearance. 1 Contract Law — Share Sale Agreement (SSA) — Breach of contractual obligations — Construction of Terms — Distinction between default/remedy clauses and dispute resolution clauses — Interpretation of phrase "at law or in equity". 1 Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defective affidavits — Plaintiff’s affidavit contain future events — Impugned affidavit to be used in the Plaintiff’s application to disallow or strike out Defendant’s Amended Defence and Counterlaim filed without leave after close of pleadings — Whether affidavit containing a bootstrap paradox or a causal loop is capable of being regularized — Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to have the defective affidavit re-sworn — Whether the defect in the plaintiff’s affidavit amounts to a mere irregularity that may be cured under Order 41 rule 4 & 7 of the Rules — Rules of Court 2012, O.1A, O.2 r.1, O.20 rr.1, 3, 4 & 5, and O.41 rr.4, 5, & 7. 1 Civil procedure – Banking – Summary judgment – Application for – Failure to make installment payments in respect of loan facility granted by plaintiff – Whether the borrower breached the banking facilities – Whether COVID-19 prevents and frustrates borrower’s obligations under the banking facilities – Whether banking facilities varied – Whether variation, if any, extinguishes guarantor’s liability – Whether demand and termination notices were effectively served – whether claim is premature – Joint and several guarantee – Principal liability clause – Indemnity clause – Certificate of Indebtedness – Conclusive Evidence Clause – Whether defendants have shown evidence of manifest error– Whether defendants successfully raised triable issues – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, 3 – Contracts Act 1950, s.77, s.78, s.86, & s. 88. 1 Civil Procedure — Amendment without leave made after close of pleadings — Defence and Counterclaim — Whether requirements of O 20 r 3 mandatory — Whether extension of time can be granted to regularize filing of O 20 r 3 amendment after close of pleadings — Whether such filing of amended defence and counterclaim under O 20 r 3 after close of pleadings amounts to an abuse of process — Whether amendment should be disallowed under O 20 r 4 — Whether the Court can strike out such pleading — Whether the late filing of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim under O 20 r 3 constitutes a procedural irregularity curable under Order 3 rule 5 — Whether procedural safeguards under O 20 r 5 rendered otiose if late amendments permitted without leave — Whether striking out warranted under O 18 r 19(1)(d) and O 92 r 4 — Rules of Court 2012, O.1A, O.2 r.1, O.3 r.5, O.18 r.19(1)(d), O.20 rr.1, 3, 4 & 5, O.41 rr.4 & 5, and O.92 r.4 1 Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defective affidavits — Defendants’ affidavits deposed by their solicitors — Whether for parties or their solicitors to affirm affidavits — Plaintiff’s affidavit contain future event — Whether the defect in the plaintiff’s affidavit amounts to a mere irregularity that may be cured under Order 41 rule 4 of the Rules. 1 Setting aside judgment in default - O. 13 r. 8 Rules of Court 2012 - Personal guarantee - Sections 79-81 Contracts Act 1950 - Whether JID regularly obtained - Typographical error in affidavit of service causing no prejudice - Effect of Judgment Debtor Summons order on guarantor's liability - Independent and co-extensive obligation - Concurrent remedies against principal debtor and guarantor - Section 8 Debtors Act 1957 - Forbearance as valid consideration - Whether bona fide defence on merits shown. 1 Striking Out - O. 18 r. 19 Rules of Court 2012 - Privity of contract - Director not party to company contract - Representative capacity - Negotiations attributed to company not director personally - Personal liability of directors - No assumption of personal liability - Lifting of corporate veil - Not pleaded - Fraud and misrepresentation - Insufficient particularity of pleading - Agency doctrine - Not pleaded - Constructive trust - No identifiable trust property - Elements not established - Abuse of process. 1 Judgment after Full-Trial - Recovery of an outstanding loan by a registered and licensed moneylender – Whether the agreement is valid and enforceable under Moneylenders Acts 1951 - Whether the Plaintiff had charged interest above the permitted rate of 18% per annum (1.5% per month) under Sec 17A(1) of the MLA – the express term of the loan agreement was governed by Oral Agreements - the Court ruled that the imposition of interest exceed the maximum interest per annum permitted – the agreement were void and unenforceable being in contravention of section 17A(1) of the MLA - Whether section 27A of the MLA prohibiting the employment of an agent by a moneylender has been contravened – Appointment of agent procuring the agreement by way of receiving directly or indirectly valuable consideration rendering the loan agreement void and unenforceable against the Defendant – Both Plaintiff and Defendant’s claim were then dismissed. 1 Judgment after Full-Trial – Disputes over delivery of the gold purchased under the Gold Sale and Purchase Agreement – Whether Plaintiffs were a contracting party to the contract of sale – Documentary evidence and the Defendants’ conduct show that the Plaintiffs were never parties to the Gold SPA – no evidence in support of Defendant’s contention - the evidential burden shifts to the Defendants – An adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1950 is drawn upon failure to call the witness whom present at the “16.1.2023 Meeting“ to testify – No obligation on the Plaintiff to deliver any gold at all for the Defendants’ contract for the purchase of gold with the Distributor only – The balance of golds taken from the Plaintiffs was wrongful and amounted to a conversion of the same by the Defendants resulting in loss to the Plaintiffs. Exemplary damages have been awarded. Plaintiff’s claim is allowed. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Consent judgment – Application to declare consent judgment valid – Settlement recorded and signed in court – Plaintiff not present and claimed lack of consent – Whether Plaintiff's counsel had apparent and ostensible authority – Whether any prejudice or injustice proven 1 1. The Plaintiffs are seeking a Declaration from the Court against the Defendant who is their brother, that the properties left behind by their parents are trust properties and therefore should be disposed accordingly, for the benefit of all the siblings. 1 2. The Plaintiffs applied that the issues in this case to be determined by way of Order 33 or Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012(“the Rules”) without the necessity of a full trial. 1 3. The provisions of Order 33(2) and Order 14A are reproduced here for ease of reference: 1 11. As there is no cause of action and as the properties have yet to be sold, the Plaintiffs’ claim is premature and unsustainable 1 12. In the upshot the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant with a cost of RM10,000. 1 1. The Plaintiffs’ in this case applied for an interim injunction to be allowed to vote and participate in any Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) conducted by the Defendant before the disposal of this suit. 1 2. The Plaintiffs are unit holders of the property referred to as the K Avenue whereas the Defendant is the managing body of the said property. 1 3. The Plaintiffs’’ claim against the Defendant by way of this suit is to invalidate 3 previous AGM’s held by the Defendant which prevented the Plaintiffs’ from voting during the AGM, on the allegation that they had failed to pay the arrears of the charges due to from them. 1 4. The Plaintiff refusal to pay the charges was on the grounds that the charges were not calculated according to the law. The Plaintiffs’ in the present suit are seeking a declaration from the Court to direct the Defendants to impose the charges according to the law. 1 10. In the upshot the Court allowed the Plaintiffs’ application with a cost of RM2,000. 1 FINAL DETERMINATION [43] For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish special circumstances within the meaning of Section 73 CJA. The circumstances raised by the Defendants relate to the alleged merits of their appeal and not to enforcement of the judgment. This is a purely monetary judgment, and it is settled law that stay of execution is rarely granted in respect of monetary judgments. The Defendants have failed to demonstrate that their appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted. The Plaintiff will suffer clear and substantial prejudice if stay is granted, whereas the Defendants will suffer no irreparable harm as any alleged loss is capable of restitution should their appeal succeed. The balance of convenience and justice lies in favour of the Plaintiff, who has already been deprived of the fruits of its judgment for an extended period while the Defendants persist in delay and non-compliance. The outcome of Appeal 433 has no bearing on the present stay applications. The Defendants' reliance on that decision is legally irrelevant and inconsistent with their own position before the Court of Appeal, amounting to approbation and reprobation. The Defendants' pattern of filing multiple stay applications demonstrates a strategy of delay and disentitles them to equitable relief. 1 [44] In the exercise of this Court's discretion, it would be inequitable and contrary to settled law to permit the Defendants to suspend enforcement of a final monetary judgment without showing genuine risk of irretrievable loss. The law does not require this Court to withhold the fruits of a valid monetary judgment out of apprehension that an appellate court's reasoning elsewhere might bear upon the parties' dispute. 1 [45] For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' stay of execution applications: • Enclosure 198 filed in Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-104-03/2023; and • Enclosure 155 filed in Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-562-10/2023 are hereby DISMISSED with costs. 1 [46] Costs of RM10,000.00 is to be paid by the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant jointly and severally to the Plaintiff, subject to allocator. 1 In a Notice of Application dated 11 May 2021 [Enclosure 7], the plaintiff seeks summary judgment against the defendant under Order 14 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). One of the claims included damages for the late delivery of the property. The court found that the defendant had not raised any triable issues. This is because the Amended Defence indicated there was no dispute about the 265-day delay. Despite the defendant's assertion that the SPA neither prohibits nor bars the plaintiff from claiming damages against it, the defendant was willing to compensate the plaintiff on proof of loss. In light of this, the defendant's liability was justifiable. 1 This Court’s Orders [26] As it is concluded by this Court that the Plaintiff has proven, on a balance of probabilities, its claim for the land, this Court orders as follows: (i) This Court declares that the Defendants do not have interests and/or rights under our NLC in respect of the land 1 (ii) This Court orders that the Plaintiff is given vacant possession of the portion of the land occupied by the Defendants and/or the Hindu temple within two months from the date of this judgment 1 (iii) This Court orders the Defendants to do everything necessary to remove the Hindu temple from the said land; 1 (iv) As magnanimously requested by the Plaintiff, this Court awards the Plaintiff the sum of RM10,000 as costs of these proceedings, subject to allocator. 1 Kontrak — Bekalan elektrik — Kewajipan pengguna membayar bil — Pelanggaran kontrak Tenaga Nasional Berhad — Tuntutan tunggakan caj elektrik — Akaun pengguna berdaftar Undang-undang bekalan elektrik — Hak pemegang lesen menuntut caj tertunggak Surcaj — Penalti lewat bayar — Hak kontrak dan statut Peraturan-Peraturan Bekalan Pemegang Lesen 1990 — Pemulihan caj dan pemotongan bekalan Bil elektrik — Bil bulanan — Kegagalan pembayaran dalam tempoh ditetapkan Bacaan meter — Bacaan meter jarak jauh (RMR) — Bacaan sebenar penggunaan Keterangan — Beban pembuktian — Imbangan kebarangkalian — Bukti dokumentari Pembelaan — Dakwaan bil tidak tepat dan diskaun kerajaan — Kegagalan membuktikan Remedi — Penghakiman wang — Faedah dan kos 1 1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is for the wrongful termination of a cleaning agreement entered between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 27/11/2018 (“the Agreement”). 1 2. The case proceeded to a full trail where the parties relied on oral testimony of witnesses as well as documents contained in the Bundle of Document filed in Court. 1 36. The Court rules in this case that the termination is invalid and therefore the Plaintiff is to be compensated for the remaining duration of the Agreement of 6 months with the agreed monthly payment. 1 37. The Court also dismisses the Defendant’s counterclaim and awards a cost of proceeding of RM100, 000 to the Plaintiff. 1 Application for appointment of administrator pendente lite. The defendants’ application for the appointment of a professional administrator pendente lite and the accompanying leave application to adduce a late affidavit were dismissed. The Court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate any urgent or compelling need for such appointment, particularly as the estate had already been liquidated and comprised only of trust monies requiring minimal administration. It found the proposed costs disproportionate and the defendants’ failure to render accounts undermined their credibility. The Court reaffirmed that interim administrators are appointed only where necessity is clearly shown and not on speculative or hypothetical grounds. 1 • Civil Procedure – Application to strike out pleadings – Order 18 Rule 19 ROC 2012 – Principles governing striking out – Discretionary power exercised sparingly – Only in plain and obvious cases. • Contract –Friendly loan agreement – Contemporaneous documents – Section 92 proviso (b) Evidence Act 1950 – Oral agreements admissible where document silent. • Equity – Unjust enrichment – Restitution – Constructive trust – Breach of fiduciary duty – Misrepresentation – Knowing receipt – Dishonest assistance. • Company Law – Liquidation – Joint Liquidators’ list of purchasers – Effect on ownership dispute – Whether inclusion in list resolves claim. • Fraud and Misrepresentation – Alleged fraudulent scheme – Representations and promises – Collateral matters requiring trial. 1 Rules of Court 2012 Order 4 Rule 1 Order 34 Rule 1 Order 57 Rule 1 Order 92 Rule 4 Consolidation of Suits Severance of Suits Judicial Discretion Inherent Powers of the Court Procedural Justice Overriding Interest of Justice Case Management Abuse of Process Judge Shopping Common Legal Representation Efficiency in Litigation High Court of Malaya Adverse Inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 Case Law References: 1 Federal Land Development Authority v. Tan Sri Hj Mohd Isa bin Dato’ Hj Abdul Samad & Ors [2022] 7 MLJ 883 Osaka Resources Sdn. Bhd. & Ors. v Foo Holdings Sdn. Bhd. [2014] 1 MLJ 461 Kumpulan Emas Bhd v. Dato' Lim Teng Lew & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 614 Multiglow Corporation Sdn. Bhd. & Anor. v. SCG Consultants Sdn. Bhd. [2020] MLJU 1221 Ng Joo Soon @ Nga Ju Soon v. Devechem Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 LNS 1677 CGU Insurance Bhd v. Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd [2006] 2 CLJ 409 1 Power of Court to order assessment of damages after setting aside interlocutory injunction – Whether necessary for an express finding by the trial judge that the injunction ought not to have been granted in the first place – Trial judge did not make any finding about interlocutory injunction in Grounds of Judgment – Stare decisis – High Court bound to adhere to precedent set by Court of Appeal on questions of law 1 1. The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment against the Defendant under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) whereas the Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim under order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules. 1 2. Both these provisions are reproduced here for ease of reference: 1 1. Application by Plaintiff for summary judgment (O. 14 r. 1) 1 (1) Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant. 1 (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be. 1 22. In the upshot the Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim for summary judgement against the Defendant with a cost of RM5,000 and dismissed the Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim with a cost of RM3,000. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — Amendment — Pleadings — Application to amend writ and statement of claim — Amendment to reflect change in defendant's name — Whether application made with inordinate delay — Whether reasonable explanation provided for delay — Whether amendment tactical manoeuvre — Rules of Court 2012 O 20 r 5, O 1A CIVIL PROCEDURE — Case management — Modern litigation framework — Court as active manager of proceedings — Late amendment application — Impact on administration of justice — Rules of Court 2012 O 1A, O 2 r 3 PARTNERSHIP — Change in firm name and structure — Sole proprietorship to partnership — Same audit firm number — Whether amendment merely technical or substantive — Partnership Act 1961 (Revised 1974) (Act 135) ss 11, 19(1) 1 Decision: Plaintiff has proven on a balance of probabilities the unsuitability of the two Defendants as co-administrators for their deceased mother's estate, and that he instead is suitable to be administrator with the support of the other two beneficiaries holding majority vote> This Court orders: 1. The Letters of Administration issued on 29.4.2003 are hereby revoked pursuant to s34 of the Act 2. The Plaintiff is now appointed as Administrator of the estate and the Letter of Administration to be issued accordingly 3. Costs of RM40,000.00 awarded to the Plaintiff, subject to allocator 1 The claim included fees under the Underwriting Agreement for 64 units sold and 48 units cancelled due to the Defendant's failure to execute Sale and Purchase Agreements. It was established that the Plaintiff did not breach its obligations but had fulfilled them by securing purchasers and was contractually entitled to its marketing consultancy fees. The Defendant breached reciprocal obligations under Section 55 of the Contracts Act 1950 by making premature demands and failing to execute SPAs. The termination on 16 November 2015 was wrongful and driven by the Defendant's commercial motives. The Plaintiff was not estopped from claiming acceptance of the termination, as it was conditional upon payment. The court finds in favour of the Plaintiff for the fees owed, and the Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed. 1 Underwriting Agreement - Marketing Consultancy Fees - Property Development; Breach of Contract; Wrongful Termination - Reciprocal Obligations - Section 55 Contracts Act 1950 – Estoppel- Contractual Interpretation 1 Perbadanan Pengurusan Residensi Sentral v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd Decision The Plaintiff's claim dismissed 1. The Defendant not liable to pay the cost of the Building Audit Report 2. The Defendant is not liable to pay RM170,000.00 for the cost to refurbish the lobby & management office & kitchen, ventilation and ducting system for the cafeteria 3. The Defendant had breached the SPA by its failure to install all parcels with an electricity meter but the Plaintiff had not succeeded in proving the quantum of loss suffered. The Plaintiff's claim is defective as it had failed to substantiate its claim of RM426,597.68 4. The Defendant is not liable to pay RM2,500,000.00 for the costs of constructing roof over uncovered car park on the Ground Floor 5. The Plaintiff pays costs of RM75,000.00 1 Keywords : breach of contract, contractual obligation 1 This was a plain and obvious case that must be struck out. The Plaintiff’s SoC against the Defendants was struck out. The costs of RM50,000 was requested by the Defendants as they submitted there was clear abuse of court process on the part of the Plaintiff. This Court deemed that costs of RM10,000 was reasonable and so awarded to the Defendants. 1 Court :This Court is satisfied that the Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action in the at the Plaintiff/Growers’ claim are clearly and obviously unsustainable. 1 -In the premises, this Court allows the Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s/Growers’ suit. -The Plaintiff/Grower’s Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim is hereby struck out with costs of RM15,000. 1 This Court’s Orders [65] After a thorough evaluation of the evidence and submissions, and applying the relevant legal principles, this Court hereby grants the following reliefs: (a) A declaration that the 1st and 2nd Defendants had wrongfully and/or recklessly and/or negligently sold 148,500,000 Benalec shares without the Plaintiff’s authority 1 (b) Equitable compensation of RM50,000.00 to be paid by the 1st and/or 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff for the said unauthorized sale of 148,500,000 Benalec shares in the amount of to be paid forthwith 1 (c) Interest of 5% on the said equitable compensation sum of RM50,000.00 to be calculated from the date of this judgment until the date of full and final settlement 1 (d) Costs to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the amount of RM40,000.00 respectively, to the Plaintiff, subject to allocator. 1 This Court did not find any merits in the Defendant’s contention to allow its application to expunge Exhibits PN3, PN5 and the relevant paragraphs in the Plaintiff’s Affidavit-In-Reply. As such, the Defendant’s application was dismissed with costs. With the further dismissal of the Plaintiff’s application for Summary Judgment, this matter has now been 1 Plaintiff’s application for leave to amend Statement of Claim – Delay in filing application – Trial scheduled to commence in a month– Trial dates fixed a year earlier –Yamaha Motor Ltd based on old Rules of the High Court 1980 - Mandatory for reasons for delay to be given – Federal Court in Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe [2016] 1 MLJ 301 introduced new approach based on Rules of Court 2012 – Nothing in Plaintiff’s affidavit to explain delay – Court may dismiss the Plaintiff’s application in limine to avoid postponing trial – No prejudice to the Plaintiff’s rights 1 Chew Teng Teng (sister-in-law) sued siblings Lim Yaw Foo and Lim Sow Yoke to validate the will of the deceased Lim Yew Shee, who died from COVID-19 in August 2020. The disputed will, dated 29 April 2017, named the plaintiff as executor and beneficiary. The plaintiff also claimed RM100,000 reimbursement for medical and funeral expenses. The will was allegedly prepared by Rockwills Corporation through agent Sally, with Sally and her daughter Serene serving as witnesses. The defendants contested the will's validity, claiming the deceased had informed them he made no will and alleging that the signature was forged. Key evidence indicated that the will was not registered in Rockwills' system until October 2021, payment records were inconsistent and the defendants' handwriting expert concluded the signatures were "highly probably not" genuine. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs, finding she had failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's creation. 1 Probate - will validity - suspicious circumstances - Wills Act 1959 - burden of proof - expert evidence - adverse inference 1 1. In this case the Court struck out the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff for failing to comply with the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) on the drafting of a Statement of Claim. The striking out of the Statement of Claim was on the basis that the manner the Statement of Claim was drafted would prejudice, embarrass and delay a fair trial of the action. 1 The defects in the Statement of Claim (SOC) 1 2. The SOC starts off with an index as to its contents which itself is unusual as normally it will begin by introducing the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 1 3. Ignoring this departure from the normal the Court glanced through the Index and it was apparent from the Index itself that the SOC had flouted every rule of drafting stated in the Rules. The Court will list out each items in the index starting with item B. 1 19. In the upshot the Court struck out the Plaintiff’s claim with no order as to cost and with a liberty to file afresh. 1 1. The Plaintiffs filed this suit against the Defendants, alleging breach and/or failure of the First Defendant (D1) to comply with his duties and obligations as the Managing Director of the Second Plaintiff (P2). 1 2. The claim is primarily based on allegations under a consent judgment, breach of directors’ duties, the tort of conspiracy to injure, using both unlawful and lawful means, and estoppel and res judicata. 1 3. D1 also filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs in the original suit for a declaration, an injunction, and damages pertaining to a shareholders' agreement and to resolutions passed at the board meeting of P2 on 15.10.2018, as null, void, and of no effect. 1 4. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim and allowed the Defendants' counterclaim. 1 Civil Procedure — Striking out — Statement of claim — Whether discloses reasonable cause of action — Whether frivolous, vexatious or abuse of process — Allegations of fraud, illegality and misrepresentation — Pleadings lacking particulars — Plain and obvious case — Summary jurisdiction of court — Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 19(1)(a)–(d) 1 Landlord and Tenant — Tenancy agreement — Delivery of vacant possession — Tenant in possession — Renovation works undertaken — Estoppel against denial of landlord’s title — Evidence Act 1950, s 116 — “As is, where is” clause — Effect 1 Evidence — Estoppel — Tenant estopped from denying landlord’s title — Possession with landlord’s permission — Whether estoppel displaced by allegation of fraud — Evidence Act 1950, s 116 1 Limitation — Limitation of actions — Tenancy agreement executed in 2018 — Suit commenced in 2025 — Whether claim statute-barred — Postponement of limitation — Alleged fraud or concealment — Means of discovery with ordinary diligence — Public land records — Limitation Act 1953, ss 6, 29 1 Contract — Tenancy agreement — Construction and renovation obligations — Allocation of responsibility — Rent-free period — Obligation on tenant to carry out works and obtain approvals — Certificate of completion and compliance — Whether landlord in breach 1 Fraud — Pleading — Requirement of particularity — General allegations insufficient — Failure to plead who, when, how and inducement — Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 12 — Whether cause of action disclosed 1 Company Law — Separate legal personality — Piercing corporate veil — Director’s personal liability — Alleged fraudulent misrepresentation — No special circumstances — No facade or sham — Abuse of process 1 Given the facts and circumstances of this case whereby the Defendants had duly informed the counsel for the Plaintiff of the factual matrix yet unfortunately the Plaintiff proceeded with this application without evidence, the Defendants are entitled to costs. I award RM5,000 to the 1st Defendant, RM5,000 to the 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants, and RM5,000 to the 3rd Defendant (per law firm appointed in the case for the Defendants). The trial is to resume. 1 Order 18 rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 – Claim obviously unsustainable if barred by s.6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 – Contractual and tortious claims barred 6 years after a right to bring action arises – S.6A(2) Limitation Act 1953 – extension of life span of cause of action in claim for damages for negligence not involving personal injuries – Chronology of events show earliest date of knowledge acquired by the plaintiff – Earliest date of both knowledge of tort and right to bring such action is the starting date in s.6A(4) – No action to be brought after the expiration of three years from the starting date – Facts of case show Plaintiffs bound by an earlier court order – No loss suffered by reason of Defendant entering into consent order with third party who is a judgment creditor of the Plaintiffs 1 To expedite the trial, this Court had fixed an earlier date to the September 2026 trial dates fixed on 17.7.2024. The trial was brought forward and to start on 3.2.2024 which is five months away. Bundles of pleadings and documents were directed to be filed by 17.10.2024, and the Agreed Facts and Issues to be Tried by 31.10.2024. This Court set 13.11.2024 at 845am for case management. 1 The dispute before the court arose from an earlier relationship between the plaintiff as a financial institution ("Bank") and the defendants ("Solicitors/Legal Firm") who were partners in a law firm retained by the Bank to represent it. 1 The Bank alleged that the Solicitors breached their contract and/or professional duties to it as well as negligently failed to protect the Bank’s interests, which was the very purpose for which the Bank appointed the Legal Firm. In relation to this, the Bank argued that it has a well-founded claim against the Solicitors for breach of contract and negligence for breach of their professional duties. According to the Bank, the Solicitors owed them a tortious duty of care, along with an additional contractual duty implied or expressly imposed on them. As a result, the Bank alleged that the Legal Firm and the Solicitors breached their duties, causing damage and loss to the Bank when the property assigned to the Bank under LACA was sold by the borrower to a third party. 1 As part of their arguments, the Solicitors argued that the Bank neglected to take certain actions which resulted in the Bank's own losses. As the Solicitors emphasised, the Bank had failed to comply with the LACA by not collecting the title from the Developer when it was issued in 2003. The Bank also failed to ensure that its previous solicitors charged the security to the Bank under the Power of Attorney conferred upon it by the borrower. 1 In this regard, the court found that based on the facts of the case, it appeared that despite the Bank having initially instructed its previous solicitors to register a land charge over the property when the strata title was issued, the Bank's instructions to register the land charge were superseded by the Bank's instructions to the Legal Firm to file a civil action against the borrower and its guarantors and to proceed with the sale of the property. These instructions had been in place since 16.2.2006 when the Legal Firm was appointed as the Bank's solicitors. 1 Further, the court found that the Legal Firm was aware at all material times that the strata title to the property was issued and held by the Developer and that the Developer had agreed to transfer the strata title when the Bank auctioned it. In this way, the Legal Firm could sell the property without registering a charge. 1 The court also found that a solicitor under a retainer is required to take pro-active steps to ensure he advises the client not only about matters where advice is specifically required, but also about matters that he may reasonably anticipate as a risk to the client if acting with reasonable skill and diligence. 1 The court also found that all defendants who were partners of the Legal Firm were jointly and severally liable for all the acts and omissions of the Legal Firm and/or any solicitor acting in the ordinary course of their business. As a result, all partners were responsible for the Bank's losses. 1 In light of the findings above, the Bank's claims against the Solicitors are allowed with costs. 1 This case concerns a commercial property dispute arising from a sale and purchase agreement dated 03.02.2021. The plaintiff claimed RM1,178,300.00 as renovation and replacement costs and RM503,013.70 for late delivery of vacant possession. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove special damages, actual expenditure or any material difference in the property’s condition. Vacant possession was validly delivered on 17.05.2021 and the defendant was entitled to invoke force majeure. The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. The defendant’s counterclaim for apportioned outgoings amounting to RM3,759.90 was allowed together with costs of RM70,000.00. 1 Permohonan penghakiman terus atas tuntutan frod yang dilakukan oleh Defendan-Defendan tidak memfailkan kehadiran dan pembelaan - permohonan ditolak. 1 Conclusion [30] This is not a case in which automatic disqualification arises. There is no suggestion that this Court has any pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. In the absence of such interest, the applicable inquiry is whether, applying the objective standard, there exists a real danger of bias sufficient to warrant recusal on the ground of apparent bias. 1 [31] For the reasons set out above, the Defendants have failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that there is any real danger that this Court might unfairly regard, or have unfairly regarded, with favour or disfavour of the Defendants. The allegations advanced do not satisfy the threshold required to displace the presumption of judicial impartiality. 1 [32] To the extent that the Defendants’ submissions may be understood as alleging actual bias, that contention is wholly unsupported by evidence. Actual bias requires proof that the decision-maker was influenced by partiality or prejudice in reaching a decision. No such proof was adduced. The argument appears instead to rest on a misapprehension of the distinction between judicial reasoning undertaken in the course of interlocutory determinations and any concluded determination of the merits. 1 [33] In short, the burden of proof rested squarely on the Defendants to establish bias of a nature and degree sufficient to impair the impartiality of this Court. That burden has not been discharged. 1 [34] In the premises, the Defendants’ application to recuse this Court is dismissed. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the application, costs are awarded to the Plaintiff. The Defendants are ordered to pay the Plaintiff costs fixed in the sum of RM20,000.00, subject to allocator, such costs to be paid forthwith 1 Civil Procedure – Application to Strike Out – Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a)-(d), Rules of Court 2012 – Whether claim discloses reasonable cause of action – Whether claim is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process – Whether there are triable issues – Whether doctrine of res judicata applies 1 Insurance – Subrogation – Whether insurers have locus standi to sue in own name – Whether subrogation rights validly exercised – Whether subrogation claim sustainable against non-tortfeasor 1 Negligence – Duty of care – Whether landlords owe duty of care to neighbouring property – Whether failure to impose public liability insurance obligation constitutes breach – Whether structural defects contributed to fire 1 Tort – Vicarious liability – Whether landlord can be held vicariously liable for acts of tenant – Applicability of close connection test – Whether landlord-tenant relationship sufficient to impose liability 1 Landlord and Tenant – Scope of liability – Whether landlord responsible for tenant’s machinery and operations – Whether tenancy agreement imposes duty to maintain safety or procure insurance 1 Res Judicata – Whether previous suit involving same parties and subject matter bars current claim – Identity of issues and parties – Whether insurers are privies to insured in earlier suit 1 Evidence – Fire investigation reports – Whether structural defects contributed to fire – Whether landlords had control or knowledge of machinery – Admissibility and relevance of BOMBA and structural reports 1 Contract – Tenancy agreement – Interpretation of clauses relating to repair and indemnity – Whether contractual terms impose liability on landlord for tenant’s acts 1 Permohonan pembatalan tindakan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19. Mahkamah membenarkan sebahagian daripada permohonan tersebut. 1 Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Defence — General traverse — Whether sufficient denial — Order 18 rule 13(3) Rules of Court 2012 1 Civil Procedure — Striking out — Defence — Sham defence — Bare denial — Failure to address material allegations — Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b), (d) Rules of Court 2012 1 Contract — Account stated — Acknowledgment of debt — Settlement agreements — Post-dated cheques — Partial payments — Whether admission of liability 1 Evidence — Affidavit — Spreadsheet annexure — Relevance and probative value — Whether refutes pleaded sums 1 Judgment — Summary judgment — Defence struck out — Judgment entered — Interest and costs awarded 1 This Court’s Orders [28] Judgment is entered against the Defendant for the sum of RM780,00.00 which is to be paid forthwith to the Plaintiff 1 [29] Interest of 5% is imposed on the judgment sum to be calculated from the date of judgment until its full and final settlement 1 [30] The issue on the Outstanding Sum is to be determined at a full trial before the Magistrate’s Court. 1 [31] Costs of RM10,000 subject to allocator is awarded to the Plaintiff. 1 Adjournment — Late Application — Discretion of Court Non-appearance of Plaintiff — Trial Proceeding Ex Parte Burden of Proof — Sections 101 & 102 Evidence Act 1950 Failure to File Witness Statement — No Evidence Adduced (Unchallenged Evidence) — No Cross-Examination Renovation Contract — Interior Design Works — Variations Special Damages — Requirement of Proof — Quantum Not Established Counterclaim — Outstanding Contract Sum Defective Works Allegation — Causation — Wet Works Not Completed Contractual Payments — Progress Payments 1 Contract for supply of technical equipment to Special Branch of Royal Malaysia Police – 1st Plaintiff sought financial assistance of Defendant – Entered into Deed of Trust to hold shares in company on trust for Defendant – Defendant signed Guarantee to guarantee a loan given by a lender to 2nd Plaintiff – 1st Plaintiff diverted money received from Police to third parties instead of repaying the loan – Defendant sued as guarantor – Summary judgment entered by lender against the Defendant – Defendants applies for Mareva injunction against 1st Plaintiff – Discovery order in aid of execution of Mareva injunction – Three requirements for issuance of Mareva injunction – Whether Defendant has shown good arguable case – 1st Plaintiff has assets within the jurisdiction of this Court – Real risk of dissipation of assets by 1st Plaintiff who has diverted funds instead of repaying loan – Discovery in aid of Mareva injunction 1 (1) The plaintiff is the registered owner of a piece of land known as Lot 123. (2) Apply for an order to compel the defendant to return all documentations for Lot 123, the return of rental and its deposit for RM88,000.00 (3) The defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff for an order for specific performance to compel the plaintiff to transfer and register the defendant’s ½ undivided share in said Lot 123. (4) After a full trial, I find for the plaintiff and enter a final judgment against the defendant with costs and dismissed the defendant counterclaim with costs. 1 Strata property – Default in payment of Maintenance Charges Definition of “defaulter” in para 6(1)(a) Third Schedule of Strata Management Regulations – Proprietor who made partial payments is still a defaulter – Maintenance Charges calculated based on Share Units of parcels – Formula for computation of Share Units for a parcel – Para 2(1) of the First Schedule to the SMA 2013 – Number of Share Units multiplied with the Amount Payable Per Share Unit – Failure to challenge the Amount Payable Per Share Unit fixed by Management Corporation – Management Corporation empowered by By-law No. 6(4) of the Third Schedule Strata Management Regulations to deactivate any electromagnetic access devices issued to a defaulter until full payment made – Management Corporation empowered stop or suspend a defaulter from using the common facilities – Defaulter can pay under protest, pending claim at the Strata Management Tribunal – Oral application on first day of trial to reclassify Part A documents in Common Bundle not permissible – Documents marked as IDs for identification purposes are not proven and admitted in evidence – To follow Federal Court in Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 MLJ 420 – No weight to be given to those documents – Order 32 rule 13 Rules of Court 2012 inapplicable to trials – Notice of Intention to refer to affidavits filed earlier in Form 58 Rules of Court 2012 applicable only to applications by way of affidavit evidence – Order 38 rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 – Parties must call witnesses to testify once trial commences – Jurisdiction of Strata Management Tribunal – Dispute between parcel proprietor and Management Corporation regarding Maintenance Charges 1 Permohonan pembatalan penyata tuntutan oleh Defendan 3, 4, 5 dan 6 di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 KKM 2012. Permohonan 3, 4, 5 dan 6 dibenarkan. 1 Conclusion [33] For the reasons set out above, this Court found that the Plaintiffs' claim aptly fell under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 that ought to be struck out. 1 [34] The Plaintiffs’ claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action in light of the Judgment in the Eviction Proceedings, which had conclusively determined the Plaintiffs' status as squatters simpliciter. The claim was frivolous and vexatious as it sought to contradict a subsisting judgment and harassed the Defendant in the exercise of its lawful proprietary rights. The claim also constituted an abuse of process as it amounts to litigation by instalments and an attempt to relitigate issues that have already been determined. 1 [35] While this Court is mindful of the observations in See Thong & Anor v. Saw Beng Chong [2013] 4 MLRA 259; [2013] 3 MLJ 235; [2013] 3 AMR 385 regarding the draconian nature of the striking out power, the present case falls squarely within the category of "plain and obvious cases" where summary determination is appropriate. 1 [36] To permit the Plaintiffs to proceed with this claim would not only undermine the finality of the Judgment in the Eviction Proceedings but would also encourage parties to fragment their disputes and pursue multiple proceedings in an attempt to obtain a more favourable outcome. This would be contrary to the interests of justice and the efficient administration of the court's business. 1 [37] Although the Plaintiffs relied on See Thong and Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v. Che Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors [2011] 1 MLRA; [2012] 1 MLJ 473; [2012] 1 CLJ 75; [2012] 1 AMR 20 in their argument that the draconian power to strike out should be exercised sparingly, and that triable issues existed regarding their equitable claims, this Court is satisfied that the prior determination in the Eviction Proceedings is conclusive. 1 [38] The Plaintiffs' submissions on licensee coupled with equity were precisely the issues that ought to have been, and could have been, raised in the Eviction Proceedings. To allow these issues to be relitigated would defeat the fundamental principle of finality enshrined in the doctrine of res judicata. 1 [39] Accordingly, the Defendant's application to strike out was allowed. The Plaintiffs' Amended Writ and Amended SoC filed on 23.4.2025 were thereby struck out with costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocator. 1 Permohonan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk mendapatkan Penghakiman Terus di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012. Di samping itu, Defendan-Defendan juga diminta untuk membuat bayaran Yuran Ingkar. Permohonan Plaintif-plaintif adalah dibenarkan. 1 This case relates to the plaintiff’s application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh under Order 21 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012. The court held that the proceedings had not reached an advanced stage and that the argument of the defendants on procedural advantages were merely technical. On the facts, the issue of locus standi was a curable procedural defect, not a substantive bar. Refusing liberty would cause disproportionate prejudice to the plaintiff. The application was therefore allowed. 1 Statutory authority of Management Corporation. Ultra vires charges. Strata Management. Differential maintenance charges. Declaratory relief. The High Court allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 holding that the defendant management corporation acted ultra vires in imposing renovation charges, interest, legal fees and differential maintenance rates. The court found that such charges were not authorised under the Strata Titles Act 1985 or the Strata Management Act 2013 and that resolutions passed at general meetings could not override statutory limitations. The court declared the charges unlawful and restrained further collection reaffirming the principle that statutory bodies may only act within their express legal powers. 1 [1] Plaintif memfailkan tindakan ini terhadap Defendan atas tuntutan berdasarkan kemungkiran Perjanjian Penyelesaian Lisan oleh Defendan apabila Defendan gagal untuk membekalkan latihan penerbangan yang telah dipersetujui. 1 [2] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Defendan telah memungkiri Perjanjian Penyelesaian Lisan dan adalah bertanggungan atas kemungkiran tersebut. 1 [3] Plaintif telah berjaya atas imbangan kebarangkalian, membuktikan tuntutannya berdasarkan keterangan dan hujahan yang dikemukakan dan tuntutan Plaintif dibenarkan dengan kos. 1 Full trial - seizure of items from premises after termination of contract by Department of Environment. Previous decision by Sessions Court that Defendant is owner of items and the same to be released to Defendant. Plaintiff now claims a return of those items or alternatively a sum of RM 21 million allegedly paid by them for those items. Defendant has counterclaim for the storage costs of the seized items. - issues are whether the Plaintiff has proven it is the owner of the seized items, whether the plaintiffs claim is barred by res judicata and whether the defendant is entitled to its counterclaim. 1 - Court finds 1) Plaintiffs claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; 2) the plaintiff has in any event failed to establish that they had paid for and are the owners of the seized items; and 3) the defendant has failed to establish their counter claim. 1 Plaintiffs claim and defendants counter claim both dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant costs of RM100,000.00. 1 By way of Enclosure 52, the first defendant seeks from this court summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the first defendant's counterclaim in accordance with Order 14 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”). In support of its application, the first defendant primarily relies on the decision of this Court given on 14 April 2025, where the defendants were allowed to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the ROC. With regard to this, the Court found that the plaintiffs are bound by the same decision, in which it was held that the plaintiffs have no proprietary rights to the properties. As a result, the plaintiffs do not have a defence to the first defendant's counterclaim, as there is no more triable issue for the Court to decide on. In light of this, summary judgment is allowed in favour of the first defendant as the correct party assigned with all rights, titles, and interests in and to the properties. 1 [1] By way of Enclosure 16, the first to seventh defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim dated 15 April 2025 pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”) and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 1 [2] According to the first to seventh defendants, this action cannot stand as a consent judgment has already been recorded in another High Court in the Commercial Division. 1 [3] Meanwhile, the plaintiff argues that this current action to set aside that Consent Judgment must proceed to full trial because the Consent Judgment was entered even though it was not settled in full and final form in the Commercial Division, which is what the plaintiff is now disputing. 1 [4] The court finds that this is a plain and obvious case that warrants the exercise of discretion to strike out the plaintiff's action. In this regard, the plaintiff's conduct prior to and following the recording of the consent judgment shows that he finally accepted its terms. As a result, not only is this action an afterthought, but also unilateral error cannot be used to set aside a regularly recorded Consent Judgment. 1 [5] Enclosure 16 is therefore allowed with costs. 1 The Notes of Objection filed was in support of the Plaintiffs' objection against the 1st Defendant's purported Afidavit Jawapan (Permohonan Plaintif untuk penzahiran pihak ketiga) in Encl. 173 of Izlin binti Ismail filed on 30.7.2024. The Court had perused the Plaintiffs' Notes of Objection (Encl. 181) and the Bundle of Authorities (Encl. 182) filed on 17.1.2025 and the 1st Defendant's Submissions (Encl. 187) filed on 25.2.2025. Based on the reasons adumbrated above, the Plaintiffs' Objection in Encl. 181 is hereby disallowed. The Court shall hear the application in Encl. 140 on its merit forthwith. No oder as to costs. 1 In the case at hand, three enclosures have been filed by the defendants: Enclosure 15 by the first defendant, Enclosure 17 by the second defendant, and Enclosure 28 by the third defendant. The three enclosures demonstrate the defendants' concerted efforts to attack the plaintiff's action in order to have it struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). The defendants' applications share a similar basis. The main contention is that res judicata applies to this case. The defendants claim in this regard that since the plaintiff attempted to commence actions on similar subject matter and based on similar facts several times before, this new complaint is now caught by res judicata. As a result of the above, the Court finds that the plaintiff has attempted to relitigate the same issues four times regarding the same property based on similar facts, and thus this action falls under the doctrine of res judicata. 1 1. In this suit, the plaintiff suffered injuries following an elective abdominal surgery performed by Dr Yogaraj (D1) on 10.07.2018 at KPJ Sentosa Medical Centre (D2). The plaintiff is suing D1 and D2 for: (i) Breach of duty to provide informed consent. (ii) Breach of duty to diagnose and treat appropriately. (iii) Direct and vicarious liability of D2 for organizational failures and lack of credentialing of D1. 2. After a full trial, I allowed the plaintiff’s claim against D1 (award damages of RM917,710.00) and against D2 (award damages of RM50,000.00) respectively, and costs. 1 Penzahiran Dokumen Pemakaian Aturan 24 Kaedah 7 dan 7A KKM 2012 Fishing Expedition Relevansi Dokumen Milikan, Jagaan dan Kuasa Keperluan untuk Pelupusan Adil 1 Balance purchase price to be paid to vendor’s solicitors to be held as stakeholders – Whether money received by the solicitors were to be held as stake monies – Whether the stakeholders breached duties as stakeholders in releasing stake monies to third parties – Appropriation of part of stake monies as legal fees – A series of fraud committed by directors of a company by selling the same land – Same solicitors acted for the company in similar transactions – Whether solicitors complicit in the fraud – Whether vendor’s solicitors have a duty to disclose that vendor’s land title had been cancelled by a court order – Whether vendor’s solicitors conspired with the client to defraud purchaser – Damages for conspiracy to defraud 1 Four applications are being heard concurrently by the Court. In this regard, there are four enclosures representing them: Enclosure 3, Enclosure 16, Enclosure 17 and Enclosure 21. By way of Enclosure 3, the plaintiff seeks interim injunctive relief to maintain the status quo of her membership without the defendants' interference. Upon the plaintiff's appearance for an ex parte hearing, the Court ordered that an inter partes hearing be held instead. In Enclosure 16, the 1st to 19th defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). Similar to Enclosure 16, Enclosure 21 has also been filed by the 20th defendant. In Enclosure 17, the plaintiff seeks a stay and suspension of the operation of the Royal Lake Club Kuala Lumpur's (“Club”) Constitution, which terminates her membership and declares her a persona non grata, and further seeks to restore her membership status. 1 The Court finds that in a situation like this, it will not allow the Court to interfere in matters that are strictly within the Club's internal jurisdiction and are governed by its Constitution. Here, the internal remedies mechanisms prescribed by the Club's Constitution must be exhausted first and/or complied with. Contravening these internal remedies would be futile and would undermine the purpose for which the Constitution was adopted. To this end, the Court finds that the Court ought not to interfere with the Club's Constitution in this matter, and if there is a remedy at all, it should be contained within the Constitution. 1 Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1)(b), (c) atau (d) Kaedah Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Aturan 92 kaedah 4 KKM 2012; mengaibkan; remeh; menyusahkan; menjejaskan, menghalang atau melengahkan perbicaraan tindakan ini dengan adil; penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah 1 [1] This is a claim by the Plaintiffs against the 1st Defendant (D1) and/or the 2nd Defendant (D2) (collectively referred to as the Defendants) and/or 3rd Defendant (D3) jointly and severally as stated in Paragraph 35 of the Plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim. 1 [2] The Plaintiffs were employed by D1 until 1.2.2017, when their employment was transferred to D3. D1 entered the Lease Agreement with MGH in 2016, which later transitioned to D3. All of which, the Plaintiffs were unaware of their employment migration until the Townhall Meeting on 26.01.2017. 1 [3] This Court finds that the fact remained that the New Lease Agreement with D3 happened without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs, and that their employment was transferred from D1 to D3 without the Plaintiffs’ consent and/or knowledge, inducing the Plaintiffs to thereafter accepting the offer of employment from D3 purportedly on a "no less favourable terms". The letter dated 1.2.2017 from D1 (Release Letter) was an attempt to circumvent D1’s contractual and/or statutory obligations to release or discharge itself from liabilities in terms of the retirement benefits that was expected by the Plaintiffs. 1 [4] This Court awarded damages in lieu of one month’s notice amounting to RM63,952.53 as per the calculation in Schedule A based on the basic salary of the Plaintiffs. 1 [5] Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and totality of the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the Plaintiffs have successfully proven their claim against D1 and ordered accordingly. 1 Land ownership and equitable occupation rights. The plaintiff, as registered proprietor of four parcels in Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, sought vacant possession and injunctions against 224 defendants occupying the land. It was held that the defendants failed to prove any licence, consent or equitable interest capable of defeating the plaintiff’s indefeasible title under section 340 of the National Land Code. The case of Sentul Murni decided earlier was distinguished on its facts. The defendants who accepted PPR housing were bound by their statutory declarations. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with vacant possession and mandatory injunctions. 1 The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, while the Defendant’s counterclaim was allowed in part. Action arises from disputes over the SPA and subsequent dealings between the parties concerning settlement payments and interest following an earlier Court of Appeal decision. Under the SPA, the Plaintiff was obliged to pay the balance purchase price within the contractual completion period. 1 Court's finding - balance of equities and contractual obligations lies with the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s remedy under the Consent Order has been fully realised - what remains are matters of contractual adjustment, not further equitable relief. The Court reiterates that specific performance is a mutual remedy. A purchaser cannot claim its benefits without fulfilling its own correlative duties under the contract. 1 Equity – a Court of equity has the power to mould the relief to suit the justice of the case based upon the particular facts of the case 1 Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Application to amend Statement of Claim – Third amendment sought after witness statements filed and trial dates fixed – Whether bona fide – Whether delay explained – Whether amendment changes character of suit – Whether prejudice compensable by costs – Rules of Court 2012, O.20 r.5; O.34 – Principles in Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd [1983] 1 MLJ 213 and Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe [2015] 8 CLJ 1 applied. 1 This judgment concerns a striking out application in an estate dispute following the deaths of spouses Aminah and Arshad. The Plaintiffs, beneficiaries under Arshad's estate, claimed entitlement to a 30.56% share in two properties allegedly excluded from the Settlement Agreement. The Defendant, as administrator sought to strike out the claim, contending that the Agreement constituted a full and final settlement. The Court held that it had jurisdiction because the dispute concerned the interpretation of a civil contract, not the determination of Islamic inheritance. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had only one entitlement—their fractional faraid shares, which already incorporated Arshad's subdivided portion—not two separate entitlements as claimed. The Agreement comprehensively covered both estates and the disputed properties. Finding that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was vexatious, and constituted an abuse of process, the Court allowed the striking-out application with costs. 1 Striking out; Settlement agreement; Faraid; Estoppel; Contract interpretation; O 18 R 19 ROC 2012; Abuse of process 1 Finding of breach of trust upheld by Court of Appeal – Defendant to pay Plaintiff the value of her shares that were sold in breach of trust – Valuation based on market price – Market price is the price paid by unrelated parties in an arm’s length transaction – General Damages to be assessed for breach of trust – Damages in lieu of restoration of trust property – Defendant to bear full losses for failing to perform restoration Damages payable regardless of causation, foreseeability and remoteness – Admissibility of evidence in the public domain, of transaction with a purchaser which is a public-listed company 1 1. The Plaintiff claim against the Defendant for fraud and/or fraudulent breach of trust arising from a Declaration of Trust. 2. The Court's observation - looking at the documents at first blush seemed like usual instrument. But having a thorough look at the transactions the Court is not convinced that these documents are what they ordinary should be. 3. The Court finds that the whole transaction disguised to cover illegal money lending transaction that was cleverly portrayed as a usual SPA & DOT. 4. Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs. 1 Tindakan ini adalah ke atas syarikat dan pengarah-pengarahnya atas penipuan dan pecah amanah dalam pembiayaan RM3 juta untuk pembelian kedai pejabat, mendakwa wang tidak diserahkan sepenuhnya kepada pemaju dan hartanah cagaran disalah nyatakan. Tuntutan ini ditolak setelah mendapati Defendan bertindak sebagai konsultan sah, wang digunakan mengikut arahan penjual iaitu pemaju projek (termasuk penebusan gadaian bank dan bayaran kepada pemaju), 19 hartanah cagaran terbatal automatik selepas perjanjian jual beli dimasukki dan tanggungjawab penyerahan hartanah terletak pada penjual bukan atas konsultan. Plaintif gagal membuktikan penipuan atau pecah amanah atas imbangan kebarangkalian, dan bayaran tambahan RM981,951.38 dibuat secara sukarela tanpa obligasi kontraktual. 1 Penipuan | Pecah amanah | Privity of contract | Misrepresentation 1 Strata Titles Property Purchase Land Subdivision Housing Development Legal Judgment Developer Obligations Contract Law Real Estate General Damages Claim Management Body Compliance Certificate Transfer of Property 1 Mixed property development – One building in one development area with two components – Residential parcels stacked atop a mall with retail units – Only a limited part of Common Property is used by the mall – Under s.21 Strata Management Act 2013, Joint Management Body has a non-delegable duty to manage, maintain and repair all Common Property within the development area, including for the retail units in the mall – Under s.25(1) Strata Management Act 2013, all purchasers are obliged to pay Maintenance Charges and Sinking Fund contribution – Even the developer has similar obligation to pay the Charges and contribution for unsold units – Pursuant to s.148 & 149 of the Strata Management Act 2013, an agreement between developer, mall developer and landowner which contravenes the said Act 2013 is invalid – JMB has no power to exempt any purchaser from paying Maintenance Charges and Sinking Fund contribution – s.105 Strata Management Act 2013 is applicable only to claims filed at the Strata Management Tribunal, not to claims filed in the civil courts – s.6(1)(d) Limitation Act 1953 applicable as the Defendant’s counterclaim for Maintenance Charges and Sinking Fund contribution is a claim by virtue of written law – Part of the claim which accrued more than 6 years prior to the Writ is time-barred by s.6(1)(d) Limitation Act 1953 – s.26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 states that a right of action to recover a debt is deemed to accrue on the date of the last payment made by the debtor – Right of action is extended every time a partial payment is made by the debtor to the creditor – Definition of a “running account” – A “running account” will also become time-barred if there is no partial payment for 6 years to trigger s.26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 – Plaintiff incurred substantial expenses to manage and maintain part of the Common Property – Unjust enrichment for the Defendant if the Plaintiff’s expenses are not set-off from Maintenance Charges and Sinking Fund contribution payable to the Defendant - Defendant’s counterclaim to be allowed subject to limitation for the part which preceded the Writ by more than 6 years and subject to set-off of expenses incurred by the Plaintiff – Plaintiff has a substantial set-off – Not a defaulter – Plaintiff should be allowed to attend the first Annual General Meeting of the newly formed Management Corporation and to vote. 1 Application pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim on the grounds that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action. Court allows the Defendant’s application. The pleaded facts, reveal that the alleged losses were suffered by third-party investors, and not by the Plaintiff himself. A trial cannot cure a pleading that fundamentally discloses no cause of action. To compel the Defendant to undergo a full trial process in such circumstances would undermine procedural justice and judicial economy. seeks to recover losses said to be suffered by unnamed investors. Such a claim is connected to the doctrine of locus standi and the principle that only a party who has suffered actionable loss may maintain a civil claim. In the context of conspiracy, the absence of pleaded personal loss is fatal. A conspiracy by unlawful means is constituted when two or more persons combine to commit an unlawful act with the intention of injuring or damaging the plaintiff, and the act is carried out and the intention is achieved. 1 The plaintiffs who are beneficial owners of a residential property claimed that a binding sale and purchase agreement had been concluded with the defendant through correspondence. The defendant repudiated the contract citing relocation abroad and later denied any concluded agreement. The defendant further made a counterclaim for the return of the deposit paid. The court held that a valid contract existed, the defendant’s conduct amounted to clear repudiation and the plaintiffs’ subsequent sale of the property was a proper exercise to mitigate losses. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs with damages in lieu of specific performance. The counterclaim was dismissed. 1 This consolidated judgment addresses five striking-out applications in a professional negligence and fraud claim arising from a 2015 land purchase. The Plaintiffs purchased land for RM4 million and later discovered a caveat alleging fraud. After losing in Suit 480 (where the High Court declared their title null and void on 25 March 2019, a decision affirmed by the appellate courts), they filed the present action on 13 May 2025 against their solicitors, the vendor's solicitors, the bank's solicitors, and the vendor's directors. The Court held that all claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953. The cause of action accrued on 25 March 2019, when actual damage crystallised in the High Court's adverse judgment, not on 23 April 2024, when the Federal Court dismissed leave to appeal. The six-year limitation period under s 6(1)(a) expired on 25 March 2025; the three-year extended period under s 6A expired on 25 March 2022. The fraud claim under s 29(1)(a) was also barred, as discovery occurred in February 2016 (caveat) or, at the latest, 25 March 2019 (judgment). The Court rejected the argument that the limitation should be suspended pending appeals, citing Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Kamarstone Sdn Bhd, which held that the limitation runs from the earliest actionable moment. Claims against the 8th and 9th Defendants were further barred by res judicata, having been litigated and dismissed in Suit 480. Claims against the vendor's solicitors were also found to have no reasonable cause of action under Pushpaleela, as they owed no duty to adverse parties. All claims were struck out as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. 1 Limitation Act 1953; striking out; time-barred; cause of action; res judicata; fraud; abuse of process; appellate rights; land transaction; caveat; indefeasible title 1 The High Court maintained ad interim injunctions against two former directors for corporate misconduct at a nightclub company. Applying Keet Gerald Francis and Aspatra, the Court found breaches of fiduciary duty and s 221 Companies Act 2016 through undisclosed RM163,273 transactions that generated secret profits, unauthorised trademark transfers, an attempt to misappropriate EUR453,928 worth of equipment, and interference with the business through defamatory posts. Unchallenged evidence showed a genuine risk of dissipation from unauthorised cash removal and concealment of assets. 1 Interim injunction - Mareva injunction - fiduciary duty - secret profits - Companies Act 2016 s 221 1 [1] This matter was set for full trial on 14.4.2025. The Plaintiffs had called three (3) witnesses to testify in Court. 1 [2] The Defendants had none. In fact, this Court had earlier struck off the Defendants’ defence and counter claim on 19.2.2025 for non-compliance of an Unless Order pertaining to the filing of pre-trial documents. The Defendants were present on that day. Thereafter, a trial date was fixed for the matter and the Defendants were informed, accordingly. 1 [3] The Defendants have not filed an appeal to the Court Order dated 19.02.2025 that struck off their defence and counterclaim under Order 34 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (ROC 2012). 1 [4] In the absence of the Defendants during the trial as well as that there is no defence of the Defendant, and based on the evidence given by the Plaintiffs’ witnesses namely; PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, this Court has then allowed the Plaintiffs’ claim with costs. 1 [5] This Court finds that since the evidence tendered by the Plaintiffs was not rebutted, thus the Plaintiffs has on a balance of probabilities, successful in proving their case in accordance with section 101 of the Evidence Act. 1 [6] Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for prayers (i), (ii), (iii), (vii), (viii) and (x), is allowed with costs. 1 [1] This is the Plaintiff’s application (Enclosure 64) to set aside an Order of this Court dated 19.2.2025. The Order was obtained by the 2nd Defendant (D2) on 19.2.2025 (Order) which struck off the Plaintiff’s claim without liberty to file afresh. This Court dismissed Enclosure 64 and the reasons are as deliberated. 1 [2] D2 raised two (2) preliminary objections (PO) that Enclosure 64 was filed out of the 30 days period stipulated under Order 42 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) and that this Court is functus officio. 1 [3] Based on the above deliberations, Enclosure 64 is dismissed with cost. 1 This case concerns a gold mining joint venture dispute where Plaintiff sought to enforce a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) against 1st and 2nd Defendants. Following a Settlement Agreement (SA) executed between the companies' controlling shareholders, RM4.3 million payment and termination of mining cooperation were agreed. Plaintiff obtained an ex parte injunction claiming the SA could not terminate the corporate JVA. The Court dismissed the injunction, holding: (1) the Plaintiff lacked locus standi, failing to establish proprietary rights over the mining lands; (2) the SA bound the corporate entities as signatories were controlling shareholders with apparent authority; (3) the fully-performed SA estopped the Plaintiff from asserting JVA rights; and (4) the balance of convenience favored the Defendants given the Plaintiff's delay and receipt of settlement consideration. 1 locus standi; privity of contract; interlocutory injunction; shareholder authority 1 Whether the Plaintiff’s action against the Defendant is time-barred pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 [Act 234] (‘LA 1953’) - Whether the Plaintiff’s action against the Defendant upon an illegal act vis-à-vis ex dolo malo non oritur actio and/or Ex turpi causa non oritur actio? 1 Orders [79] In light of all the findings by this Court, the Plaintiff’s suit is dismissed in its entirety. The Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay costs to the Defendants. The 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant and the Plaintiff himself leave it to this Court’s discretion. The 3rd Defendant, on the other hand prayed for costs of RM20,000.00 as he had attempted to strike out the suit and when it was dismissed, the costs was ordered to be in the cause. 1 [80] This Court was mindful that it took three days of trial. Several witnesses, documentary evidence and submissions were produced for this Court’s due consideration. In the premises, this Court considers it just to award costs which is to be paid forthwith, as follows: (a) RM15,000.00 to the 1st Defendant (b) RM15,000.00 to the 2nd Defendant (c) RM20,000.00 to the 3rd Defendant 1 Permohonan Defendan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk membatalkan Writ danPernyataan Tuntutan Plaintif. Defendan berhujah atas isu bahawa tindakan Plaintif adalah res judicata kerana isu yang sama telah diputuskan dalam Guaman No. WA-22NCvC-535-09/2022. Plaintif pula menegaskan bahawa tindakan ini bukan relitigation, tetapi pelaksanaan relif (consequential relief) atas deklarasi terdahulu. Mahkamah telah menolak permohonan Defendan-Defendan. Pada masa yang sama, Mahkamah telah seterusnya memutuskan bahawa tindakan utama Plaintif dalam Writ bertarikh 26 Mei 2025 ini telah diselesaikan sepenuhnya dan tiada lagi keperluan untuk perbicaraan penuh kerana Mahkamah mendapati bahawa isu substantif dalam Writ ini telah pun selesai dari mula, iaitu apabila ia telah diputuskan dalam Guaman No. WA-22NCvC-535-09/2022 dan dianggap telah dilaksanakan secara muktamad melalui perintah pelaksanaan ini. 1 Isu utama yang timbul untuk keputusan Mahkamah adalah seperti yang berikut: (a) Sama ada tindakan Plaintif dalam Guaman 317 adalah dihalang oleh prinsip res judicata kerana ia dikatakan berdasarkan kausa tindakan yang sama dengan Guaman 535; dan (b) Sama ada tindakan Plaintif ini sebenarnya adalah relif lanjutan (pelaksanaan) yang timbul daripada penghakiman deklaratori dalam Guaman 535. 1 in the counterclaim for a stay of the proceedings in the action - to arbitration pursuant to s 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 [Act 646] (‘AA 2005’) and/ or O. 69, r. 10 of the Court Rules 2012 - Whether D3 and D4 have taken any steps in the proceedings - Whether the arbitration agreement covers the present dispute - Whether an order for stay pending reference to arbitration may be made in view of there being non-parties to the arbitration agreement in the instant suit 1 Conclusion [46] No doubt there is evidence of unpaid amount of RM589,698.36 for goods delivered and services rendered by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant has successfully proven on a balance of probabilities that the said contractual obligation is void due to fraud and collusion on the part of the Plaintiff. 1 [47] This Court finds that the Plaintiff made fraudulent misrepresentations concerning its identity. The evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s knowledge that IXI was a vendor expressly barred by the Defendant, the operations of the Plaintiff were in substance conducted by, or under the effective control of, IXI. This material concealment and misrepresentation of the Plaintiff’s true operational identity vitiated the contractual relationship between the parties. 1 [48] This Court does not consider it just or equitable for the Plaintiff - having been found to have perpetrated fraud against the Defendant by concealing its connection with the banned vendor, IXI, and by misrepresenting its true identity - to be permitted to profit from its own wrongdoing, in accordance with the well-established principle that fraud unravels all. 1 [49] The Plaintiff cannot, in law or in equity, be allowed to derive advantage from a fraudulent scheme of its own making. See the principles elucidated in Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702. At the same time, this Court is mindful that its determination must strike a fair balance between the parties and uphold the integrity of the judicial process. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s claim is accordingly dismissed. 1 [50] However, notwithstanding this Court’s finding that the Plaintiff had defrauded the Defendant, in particular as to its identity, this Court is not persuaded that justice or equity would be served by permitting the Defendant to retain the benefit and enjoyment of the goods and services already provided, while simultaneously recovering the monies paid in respect thereof. To allow such recovery would result in an unjust enrichment of the Defendant. Accordingly, this Court declines to grant the reliefs sought by the Defendant insofar as they relate to the reimbursement of payments made for goods and services which were in fact rendered and enjoyed. Thus, the Defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed. 1 [51] With regards to cost, the submissions of both counsels are considered. This Court agrees that the Plaintiff who had initiated these proceedings is not entitled to any award or costs as it is found to have conducted in a fraudulent manner with regards to the subject matter although the Defendant has not succeeded in its counterclaim. There is no order as to costs. 1 FGP Ventures Sdn Bhd's summary judgment application for RM17,640,000 in agreed liquidated damages under timber plantation Joint Venture Agreements was dismissed. The court identified multiple triable issues: whether the RM82 per tree Fixed Return was unconditionally payable after 40 months or contingent on tree harvesting; uncontested evidence of tree immaturity; whether the agreements constituted illegal moneylending; force majeure claims for landslides; the nature of defendants' correspondence as debt admissions; and ambiguity in Green Afforestation International Network Sdn Bhd's liability. These substantial disputes required a full trial with viva voce evidence and could not be determined summarily. 1 Summary judgment; joint venture; fixed return; contractual interpretation; triable issues; force majeure; illegal moneylending; liquidated damages 1 An appeal against the decision of this Court which dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Defence. Court found that there was no sufficient basis in law or on the facts to justify setting aside the JID entered against D1 and D3. Plaintiffs’ reasons insufficient to set aside the JID entered . Court must firstly determine if the JID was a regular or irregular one. The delay of nearly three years in bringing this application is wholly unexplained. 1 Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Failure of consideration Dishonest assistance – Knowing receipt – Constructive trust Illegality – Ex turpi causa – Public policy – In pari delicto Moneylenders Act 1951 – Unlicensed moneylending – Investment or loan Bankruptcy – Undischarged bankrupt – Sanction of Director General of Insolvency – Locus standi Anti–Money Laundering, Anti–Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 – Freezing of bank accounts Burden of proof – Fraud – Standard of proof – Sections 101 and 103 Evidence Act 1950 Clean hands doctrine – Equitable relief – Restitution denied Third party bank accounts – Control of account – Absence of benefit – No unjust enrichment Civil procedure – Claim dismissed – Costs – Allocatur 1 This Court’s Orders [65] This Court finds on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff has successfully proven its claims. This Court hereby orders that: (a) The Defendant shall vacate and deliver vacant possession of the Property to the Plaintiff within 90 days of the date of this Order 1 (b) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff mesne profits at the rate of RM2,500 per month from the date of this judgment until the date of the delivery of the Plaintiff 1 (c) General damages to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for trespass being damages for unlawful occupation, calculated at RM2,500 per month from 4.3.2021 until the date of this judgment 1 (d) Aggravated damages in the sum of RM20,000 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for his unconscionable conduct, systemic dishonesty, and abuse of the legal process 1 (e) Interest of 5% per annum on all monetary awards which shall be calculated from the date of judgment until full and final settlement 1 (f) The Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim are dismissed in their entirety 1 (g) Costs of these proceedings in the sum of RM50,000 to be paid by the Defendant to Plaintiff, subject to allocator. The Plaintiff had sought for costs of RM50,000 whilst counsel for the Defendant submitted that he is a bankrupt. This court spines all the amounts awarded against the Defendant are fairly fixed including the costs of these proceedings 1 [66] Mesne profits shall continue to accrue at RM2,500 monthly until actual delivery of vacant possession of the Property. The Plaintiff may apply for additional costs arising from enforcement proceedings. The Plaintiff is also given the liberty to apply for any consequential orders, clarification or directions arising from this judgment. 1 Partnership accounting dispute in the context of a family enterprise. High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for a summary order for account under Order 43 of the Rules of Court 2012. High Court found substantial contested facts and preliminary issues that required full trial determination. The decision underscores that in cases where a partnership was operated as a family enterprise for shared family expenses, fiduciary duties must be assessed in light of the long-established course of dealing and mutual confidence. Retrospective accounting obligations cannot be imposed in the absence of clear agreement or practice. 1 Subject Matter: Professional negligence. Solicitor’s duty of care. Unregulated collective investment scheme. Failure to advise on legal and regulatory risks. Conflict of interest. The plaintiff sued her solicitors for professional negligence relating to a failed property investment in the United Kingdom. The defendant is found liable for breach of duty of care in failing to advise the plaintiff on the risk that the scheme constituted an unregulated collective investment scheme under the UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The breach also arose from non-compliance with the UK SRA guidance, failure to explain the legal risks and non-enforceability of contractual guarantees and failure to disclose a conflict of interest. Causation was established and the plaintiff’s losses were recoverable. 1 Power of Attorney – Interlocutory injunction to restrain Defendants from using Power of Attorney – Allegation of sham agreement – Oral evidence required to determine the issues raised by both sides – Injunction necessary to preserve status quo pending disposal of civil suit – Balance of convenience in favour of issuance of injunction – Defendants’ also safeguarded by another injunction to restrain Plaintiff from disposing the property pending disposal of civil suit 1 Conclusion [41] For the reasons set out above, this Court finds that there exists sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 34 of the Probate & Administration Act 1959 (Revised 1972) for the removal of the Defendant as administrator of the Deceased’s estate. 1 [42] This Court has applied the objective test established in Re Khoo Boo Gong, Deceased Khoo Teng Seong v. Teoh Chooi Ghim & Ors (supra), as adopted in Damayanti Kantilal Doshi & Ors v. Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi & Ors [1998] 2 MLRA 177 and Tan Khay Seng (supra), and has concluded that the removal of the Defendant is necessary for the due and proper administration of the estate and is in the interests of the beneficiaries. 1 [43] This Court has been particularly mindful throughout these proceedings of its duty to protect the interests of the Defendant, who appeared without legal representation. This Court is satisfied that the Defendant was afforded a full and fair hearing, that all his concerns were carefully considered, and that his removal as administrator will not prejudice his substantive rights as a beneficiary. The Defendant did not attend the oral submissions although he had full knowledge. The Defendant did not file any written submissions. This Court relied on the evidence adduced at trial, his pleaded position and the relevant authorities. 1 [44] This Court is further satisfied that the appointment of the three Plaintiffs as administrators in place of the current administrators will enable the estate to move forward to proper distribution after 46 years of administration. 1 1. The Plaintiff’s action against the Defendant in this suit was for the enforceability of 3 Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) entered between them. 1 2. The Court after perusing the pleadings decided that the dispute between the parties could be resolved based on legal arguments based on the documents filed by the parties. 1 3. Accordingly the Court applying Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) directed the parties on the issue “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the 3 SPAs”. 1 4. Order 33 of the Rules stipulates as follows: 1 2. Time of trial of questions or issues (O. 33 r. 2) 1 The Court may order any question or issue arising in a cause or matter, whether of fact or law or partly of fact and partly of law, and whether raised by the pleadings or otherwise, to be tried before, at or after the trial of the cause or matter, and may give directions as to the manner in which the question or issue shall be stated. 1 17. It is therefore concluded that the Plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the 3 SPAs. 1 This action concerned the recovery of outstanding rental and restoration costs arising from the lease of 82 tank containers under a Principal Lease Agreement governed by Dutch law. The plaintiff, as assignee under an Asset Purchase Agreement dated 30.04.2019, claimed unpaid rental and repair costs. The defendant challenged the plaintiff’s locus standi and contended that Malaysian law applied. The Court held that Dutch law governed the substantive issues pursuant to an earlier ruling and found that the assignment was valid under Article 6.159 of the Dutch Civil Code. The plaintiff succeeded in recovering USD 247,157.50 in outstanding rental with interest. However, the claim for restoration and surveyor costs was dismissed for failure to prove actual loss incurred. 1 Reasons for this Court not to exercise its discretion [23] The Court is mindful that the trial in this matter had already been concluded after considerable time and resources were expended. In that context, the filing of this application at such a late stage - the judgment was delivered in July 2025 - and after parties had lodged their appeals at the Court of Appeal, this Court noted with some concern. This Court found it difficult to reconcile the lateness of this application despite the proposed intervener’s prior awareness of the proceedings, and that raised legitimate concerns relating to procedural fairness and finality. 1 [24] At the forefront is as held in Sri Permata Sdn Bhd v PPH Realty Sdn Bhd (Lingkaran Cemerlang Sdn Bhd, Intended Intervenors) [2022] 1 MLJ 552 that maintained the cardinal principle that the power to grant leave to intervene is the court’s discretion. Then, this Court turns to Wan Salimah Bte Wan Jaffar v Mahmood Bin Omar (Anim Bte Abdul Aziz, Intervener) [1998] 5 MLJ 162 that explicitly upheld at p170: “It is a correct statement of the law to say that a person without legal but only a commercial interest cannot be allowed to intervene (Re Farbenindutrie [1944] Ch 41 (CA). In the same vein, Kerr LJ said in Sanders Load Co Inc v Entores Metal Brokers Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 857 to this effect (at p863): In my view, the rule requires some interest in the would-be intervener which us in some way directly related to the subject matter of the action. A mere commercial interest in its outcome, divorced from the subject matter of the action is not enough..” 1 [25] Vide this application, the proposed intervener had failed to show that its legal right was impeded, disturbed, or affected. The orders were made as a result of the findings of facts in the case. The Plaintiff, not being a homeowner, was ordered to remove herself from the WhatsApp homeowner community/residential group chats, based on the historic events where inflammatory language was used by her that this Court found was defamatory on several occasions. This Court was of the considered view that the Plaintiff ought not to be on such community/residential communication platform because there was no legal need or any necessity especially so when the discord with the committee members of the earlier committee(s) was so bitter, such a platform ignited legal consequences (in the main case, it was defamation). The proposed intervener had not demonstrated to this Court how such orders affected it. Should it wish to re-employ the Plaintiff as its legal counsel, the orders do not bar so. Should it desire to communicate with the Plaintiff via WhatsApp chat communications, the orders do not ban such. Should its’ new committee want to discuss legal matters with the Plaintiff, the orders do not restrain such. See also Chong Fook Sin v. Amanah Raya Bhd & Ors [2010] 7 CLJ 917. 1 [26] It had to be stated here that this Court is slightly puzzled as the orders are spent and academic. There was no stay in the execution of the orders. Thus, the Plaintiff had removed herself from the Amadesa Resort Condominium WhatsApp Homeowners community/residential communications. Yet, the proposed intervener failed to demonstrate how that had affected any of their legal rights (or even commercial for that matter - no demonstration of how its commercial rights were affected). The homeowners voted the committee members to execute duties relating to the affairs of their residence. Any legal matter arising was to be communicated by the committee members and the legal counsel, not directly by or with the homeowners. There are no breaches of any of the provisions of the SMA. Besides, the fact remained that the orders were complied with long before this application. 1 [27] As to the submissions of the proposed interveners that the Defendants did not plead that the Plaintiff be removed from the WhatsApp community/residential group co 1 Dissolved company; Struck-off company; Locus standi; Legal capacity to sue; Preliminary issue; Question of law; Order 14A; Order 18 rule 19; Order 33 rule 2; Companies Act 2016; Reinstatement of company 1 Application by the Defendant under Order 33 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 whereby the Court may order any question or issue arising in a cause or matter whether of fact or law or partly of fact and partly of law, and whether raised by pleadings or otherwise, to be tried before, at or after the trial of the cause or matter, and may give directions as to the manner in which the question or issue shall be stated. 1 The Court reiterates that litigation should not be used as a tool for oppression or delay. A party that knowingly persists in untenable claims, particularly after conceding a lack of cause of action, risks adverse cost consequences and potential sanctions. The judicial process must be respected, and courts will not hesitate to strike out claims that serve no legitimate legal purpose. 1 This Court’s Orders [29] Enclosure 3 was allowed. The injunction order pursuant to the Plaintiff’s application under Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC) is to remain in effect until the disposal of the case. Costs in the cause. 1 Permohonan untuk membatalkan tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua iaitu seorang peguambela dan peguamcara - permohonan dibenarkan kerana tiada hubungan pelanggan dan peguamcara di antara Defendan Kedua dan Plaintif ditunjukkan melalui afidavit-afidavit yang difail. Ini adalah keadaan yang sesuai untuk Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 digunapakai. 1 This case involves the Defendant, as sole director of SH Land Sdn Bhd, who fraudulently misrepresented a joint venture development project in Kelantan involving the Sultan to induce the Plaintiffs' RM5 million investment. The court found the Defendant diverted the RM4.5 million loan portion to third parties unrelated to the project. Piercing the corporate veil, the court rejected the Defendant's claims of res judicata from a previous default judgment against the company and ordered him to repay RM4.5 million with 5% interest personally. 1 Fraudulent misrepresentation; corporate veil; director's liability; misappropriation; joint venture; company law 1 A dispute has arisen out of the Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (“BOOT”) Agreement dated 17.8.2015 (“BOOT Agreement”). Both parties were satisfied with the terms of this agreement after several discussions were held. In essence, the parties intended to cooperate into a business venture to process empty fruit brunch ("EFB") as a source of income for them. 1 Nevertheless, what was supposed to be a fruitful business venture failed as a result of the defendant's alleged failure to comply with its obligations. In the ensuing disputes, the plaintiff seeks RM2,023,650.00 in agreed compensation, RM10,702,502.60 in lost profits, general damages, costs and interest. Meanwhile, the defendant filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the termination of the BOOT Agreement was unlawful, along with a claim for the rental of the plant and special damages. The defendant, however, abandoned their counterclaim during the trial. 1 After reviewing all the evidence, the court finds that the BOOT Agreement had been validly terminated by the plaintiff. In this regard, the defendant failed to provide enough electricity to enable the plaintiff to fulfill his obligations under the BOOT Agreement. As a result, the plaintiff suffered losses. However, the plaintiff is only entitled to RM2,023,650.00 in agreed compensation, but not RM10,702,502.60 in lost profits. 1 Abstrak 1 Kes ini melibatkan pertikaian pentadbiran harta pusaka Che Soo binti Chi yang meninggal dunia tanpa wasiat pada 2013. Plaintif-plaintif mempersoalkan kesahihan dan pengendalian Surat Kuasa Mentadbir yang diberikan kepada defendan pertama sebagai pentadbir tunggal. Mahkamah mendapati Surat Kuasa Mentadbir diperoleh secara sah mengikut prosedur undang-undang, namun defendan telah salah urus estet secara teruk. Dapatan utama termasuk senarai aset sengaja tidak dilengkapkan; defendan bertindak dalam konflik kepentingan sebagai pentadbir dan pengarah syarikat; hasil jualan hartanah dan pendapatan sewa tidak dikira dengan betul; dan kegagalan mengekalkan rekod estet yang sempurna. Walaupun tuntutan pembatalan di bawah seksyen 34 Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959 ditolak, Mahkamah mendapati pelanggaran kewajipan fidusiari yang memerlukan campur tangan. Relief yang diberikan termasuk pelantikan pentadbir bersama, pendedahan penuh semua aset estet, pemulangan hasil yang diperoleh secara tidak wajar, dan gantirugi teruk. 1 Kata Kunci 1 • Pentadbiran harta pusaka • Surat Kuasa Mentadbir • Kewajipan fidusiari • Konflik kepentingan • Seksyen 34 Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959 • Gantirugi teruk 1 Definition of “man-day” – Whether applicable for calculation of damages when the contract is silent on how damages for breach is to be assessed – Teaming Agreement – Plaintiff prepared proposal for Defendant to bid for government contract upon Defendant’s undertaking to subcontract to Plaintiff – Defendant awarded government contract by the National Cyber Security Agency (“NACSA”) and did appoint the Plaintiff as its subcontractor – Plaintiff played major role in performing the Government contract – Plaintiff attended every meeting with Government agencies and attend to every aspect of the project – Defendant is to only supply the hardware for installation of software created by the Plaintiff – Government agency NACSA terminated contract due to unforeseen reasons – Defendant terminated subcontract but failed to pay Plaintiff – Defendant also failed to disclose payment or other consideration that it received from the Government agency – No default by Plaintiff – Whether Defendant has breached contract with Plaintiff – Damages to compensate Plaintiff – Whether S.71 Contracts Act 1950 / Quantum Meruit is applicable – Whether Plaintiff may claim damages based on man-day calculation method – Privity of contract – Plaintiff has no cause of action against NACSA – No statute in Malaysia similar to UK Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. 1 No triable issue in respect of part of the Plaintiffs’ claim – Order 14 rule 3 Rules of Court 2012 – Permissible for summary judgment to be issued for part of the Plaintiffs’ claim – Breach of Settlement Agreement – Settlement Agreement stated amount payable for multiple items of losses in the event of breach of the agreement – Defence under s.75 Contracts Act 1950 raises triable issues – whether penalty or justifiable – Summary judgment for part of the Plaintiffs’ claim – Quantum of remaining parts of the Plaintiffs’ claim to be set down for trial 1 Court’s Assessment [21] A close study of the FLA and Letter of Guarantee was undertaken by this Court. Consideration was also made to the factual matrix and the conduct of parties including the payments made and when they were made by the 1st Defendant. 1 [22] It is the finding of this Court that the payment of RM300,000.00, under Clause 6 of the FLA that the Defendants claimed made the whole FLA illegal and unenforceable, was not an “interest”. It was a consideration for the Plaintiff to extend the time to the 1st Defendant for its contractual obligation to repay the exact sum borrowed. 1 [23] If the 1st Defendant had chosen to pay the borrowed sum by 12.4.2023, no further or additional figure on that exact sum borrowed would have been imposed. Thus, it cannot be said to be interest in that sense that the Defendants had submitted to be unlawful. 1 [24] That payment of RM300,000.00 was only for when the 1st Defendant had opted for an enlargement of time for repayment. It is not interest and it was not meant to go towards the repayment for the said sum borrowed. These facts distinguished those in the Federal Court cases referred to by the Defendants. 1 [25] In examining the pleadings, the payments and the sequences thereof are undisputed. A contention by the Defendants was that the sums paid which totalled to RM1,200,000.00 were for the repayments of the borrowed sum, and not that under Clause 6 of FLA for extension of time for repayment. However, the FLA is clear on this. Their agreement had stipulated the timeframe for repayment which was six months and that the friendly loan was to be repaid by 12.4.2023. This is clear as day. 1 [26] Thus, this Court finds that those payments were for the consideration for the invocation of the cycles under Clause 6 of the FLA. The Defence filed in short, amounted to merely a denial. Enclosure 9 did not provide any triable issues nor any fact to render Clause 6 FLA as interest payment. 1 [27] In the case of Triple Zest (supra), when the borrower failed to repay the amount borrowed, it was liable for that amount plus the “agreed profit” (the term used by the parties). The agreed profit was the same amount as that borrowed, thus the borrower was required to pay double the borrowed sum. The Federal Court determined this as an illegality by categorising the “agreed profit” as interest which would attract the requirement under section 5 of the Moneylenders Act 1951 of a license under the Act. There was no extension of time granted by the lendor for the payment of the agreed profit, the agreed profit was to be paid on top of the amount borrowed upon default. This court find the facts in the present case to be distinguished from Triple Zest (supra) as the payment of the RM 300,000 (which constituted approximately 23.08% of the borrowed sum) was consideration for the granting of the extension of time to repay the borrowed sum by six months. 1 [28] The Defendants averred in Enclosure 9 that the 1st Defendant had not received RM1,300,000.00 from the Plaintiff but only RM982,486.00. Yet, none of the Defendants had raised this complaint to the Plaintiff at any time until after proceedings had been initiated by the Plaintiff to recover the borrowed sum. The parties are bound by the agreement (FLA) that they had consented to and executed (this agreement was duly stamped). The Defendant could not be allowed to veer and disclaim terms already agreed to. Moreover, this Court found that the Defendants were inconsistent and unreliable in their stance and position as they had adduced document where they stated the loan amount as being RM1,000,000.00 in their Affidavit-in-Reply (Enclosure 9). 1 [29] It is paramount that parties are always bound by their pleadings. This fact was absent from the Defence. See Lee Ah Chor v Southern Bank Bhd [1990] 2 MLRA 6 and Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd v Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] MLRHU 559. 1 Permohonan pindaan Writ dan Penyata Tuntutan di bawah Aturan 20 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - permohonan dibenarkan. 1 The claims are for RM14.68 million based on alleged oral promises made in 2008 for profit-sharing and employment benefits from energy companies. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to 8% of project profits and other benefits after leaving his position to develop offshore production technology. The court rejected secretly recorded conversations as inadmissible due to non-compliance with section 90A Evidence Act 1950 and dismissed the claims on three grounds: time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953, barred by res judicata from a withdrawn Industrial Court case, and failure to prove the alleged oral promises. 1 • Oral agreements • Section 90A Evidence Act 1950 • Limitation Act 1953 • Res judicata • Digital evidence admissibility 1 Assessment of damages – with an award for aggravated damages having been made by the trial judge, it is too late in the day for the defendant to assert during the assessment of damages stage that aggravated damages ought not to be awarded 1 • Insurance – Life policy – Nomination – Non-family nominee – Distribution of proceeds – Application of Paragraph 5 and Paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 Financial Services Act 2013 1 • Statutory interpretation – Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 10 FSA 2013 – Meaning of “spouse, child or parent” – Legal effect on nominees-consequences of nomination to persons not within the statutory categories 1 • Trust vs Will – Separate instruments – Non-revocation – Precedence of statutory provisions – Paragraph 13 of Schedule 10 FSA 2013 1 • Protector role – No power to override statutory provisions 1 • Blood Relationship – Legal Relevance- meaning of Child in Adoption Act - inclusion of legally adopted children within “child” category under Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 10 FSA 2013 1 Plaintiffs invested RM1.2 million in a Sabah Parks tracking system project based on false claims by defendants that the project was approved and secured. The Court found the defendants fraudulently misrepresented the project status—no agreement existed with Sabah Parks, approvals were none and promised collateral was never provided. The defendants' arguments that the agreement was illegal moneylending or inadmissible for lack of stamp duty were rejected. Directors and CEO were held personally liable for fraud. Court ordered full refund of RM1,196,191.15 plus interest and damages. 1 Investment fraud - misrepresentation - director liability - unjust enrichment - corporate veil - restitution 1 By way of Enclosure 21, the second and third defendants seek to set aside the Judgment and Order both dated 15 November 2019 ("Judgment and Order") which were obtained in relation to the summary judgment application filed by the plaintiff without the attendance of their previous solicitors. This application was filed by the second and third defendants almost five (5) years after the Judgment and Order were obtained. Based on the examination of the second and third defendants' application, I must hold at the very outset that they filed their application not only after the 30 days period provided by the ROC, but also inordinately late. Therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to set aside the judgment and order. In fact, it will be prejudiced to the plaintiff who had diligently attended to this matter. 1 Deed of Acknowledgment of Debt – Allegation of duress in signing the deed – No police report lodged by the Defendant alleging duress to sign a deed – No counterclaim filed by the Defendant to invalidate the Deed – Duress not even pleaded in the Defence –The Defendant’s allegation of duress is an afterthought – Sham Defence – Plaintiff entitled to summary judgment – Deed specifies two instalments for payment – Second instalment not payable yet – Defendant already in breach of Deed – Summary judgment for full debt justified with payment by way of two instalments – Higher costs to be awarded for case of wilful default by the Defendant – Interest on costs payable pursuant to Order 59 rule 24 Rules of Court 2012 1 This case involved eleven investment agreements of RM2.2 million between family members and the company, where plaintiffs claimed fraudulent misrepresentation regarding non-existent projects. The defendants argued the agreements were disguised moneylending transactions contravening the Moneylenders Act 1951. In applying the principles in Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd, it was found that the agreements constituted illegal moneylending due to their characteristics of fixed 30% returns regardless of business performance, systematic lending patterns and identical structures across multiple transactions. The S 100A presumption that the plaintiffs were engaged in unlicensed moneylending remains unrebutted, rendering the agreements void ab initio and unenforceable under S 15. ________________________________________ Keywords 1 Moneylenders Act 1951; illegal moneylending; disguised loan agreements; investment agreements; statutory presumption; Section 100A MLA 1951; void ab initio; Triple Zest Trading; fraudulent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; sham agreements; unlicensed moneylenders; fixed returns; systematic lending; rebuttable presumption 1 Full Trial - Plaintiff claims that defendant advocate and solicitor was negligent and breached fiduciary duties. 1 Issues - whether D was common solicitor for P and other party i the drawing up of an agreement and whether there was a duty of care and the scope of such duty; whether the failure of P to call an expert was fatal; whether there was a breach of duty of care/negligence and breach of fiduciary duty; whether P suffered loss or damage? 1 Court finds : 1. D did indeed at as common solicitor and owed a duty of care; 2. the non calling of an expert witness was not fatal in that the Court could ascertain for itself on the facts and evidence; 3. P has failed to establish that D was negligent or had breached any fiduciary duty; and 4. P failed to prove loss and damage. Plaintiffs claim dismissed. 1 Assessment of Arguments of Parties [14] The Defendant raised various purported issues regarding the Plaintiff’s works. However, this was not raised at all after the issuance of the Certificate of Practical Completion or when negotiations for the settlement of outstanding amount were discussed whether between the parties or through their respective solicitors. 1 [15] Moreover, the Defendant’s conduct in actively having participated in the settlement terms of payment, superseded any contended dissatisfaction. The Defendant is bound by the Settlement Agreement and must make good its contractual obligations. 1 [16] The fact that there was the Settlement Agreement and that the Defendant was bound by it were not disputed by the Defendant. 1 [17] This Court found the Defendant’s arguments that summary judgment ought not be granted as there were pending negotiations or rather that the negotiations were still on-going untenable. This Court found that the Settlement Agreement was concluded by both sides. Particularly so when the Defendant’s own conduct - in having paid not one but four instalments show without a doubt that the negotiations and agreement had been concluded. 1 [18] This Court sighted the relevant multiple express agreement of the Defendant with regards the payment for the outstanding sum owed to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is estopped from raising issues on so-called defects when it did not feature at all during talks of settlement. This was most definitely a case where summary judgment is most appropriate. 1 [19] There are no triable issues in the matter. 1 [20] The following authorities were considered by this Court in determining this application: • Multi-Purpose Finance Bhd v Tan Sri Dato Ting Pek Khiing [1998] 7 MLJ 229; [1998] 4 MLRH 802 • Puncak Alam Housing Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Bukit Cerakah Development Sdn Bhd) v Menta Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 1 MLJ 287; [2013] 3 MLRA 574 • CJ Century Technology Sdn Bhd v Axisjaya Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] MLJU 2086; [2020] MLRHU 1652 • Tong Ah Poo v Jasin Construction Development (M) Sdn Bhd [2013] MLRAU 260 • PVT Enginering Sdn Bhd v Agibs Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] CLJU 1108 • Teknojaya Construction Sdn Bhd v Telliana Plantations Sdn Bhd [2016] MLJU 1486 • Ching Yew Chye & Ors v Pavitar Singh a/l Manjeet Singh & anor [2018] 10 MLJ 612; [2017] MLRHU 1388 • National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] [1984] 1 MLRA 190; [1984] 2 MLJ 300; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 283 • Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying (trading as KH Trading) & Anor [2006] 2 MLJ 685 • Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400; [1992] 1 MLRA 190; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 14 • Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd v APFT Land Sdn Bhd [2018] 10 MLJ 257; [2018] MLRHU 1018 • Charles Greenier Sdn Bhd v Lau Wing Hong [1997] 1 CLJ 625; [1996] 2 MLRA 188; [1996] 3 MLJ 327; [1996] 3 AMR 3533 • Liebherr Sales Kluang Sdn Bhd v Zhongji Construction Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 257 • Order 14 Rules of Court (ROC) 2012 1 Undertaking given to the court – Undertaking recorded in a consent order – Undertaking by directors of company amounting to personal undertaking – Undertaking given to the Court has the same force as an injunction made by the Court – Breach of the undertaking is misconduct amounting to contempt – Corporate veil of company irrelevant – Wrongdoing warrants the application of the evasion principle enunciated in ONG LEONG CHIOU & ANOR v. KELLER (M) SDN BHD [2021] 4 CLJ 821 – Corporate veil may be pierced to enable liability to be imposed on the directors who gave personal undertaking – Clear cut case suitable for summary judgment 1 [1] The Plaintiff files this Suit against the Defendant seeking for the recovery of rental and delivery of vacant possession while the Defendant files a counterclaim against the Plaintiff that the Defendant be relieved against forfeiture of the tenancy, to allow further extension of the tenancy, and alternatively, cost of renovation. 1 [2] The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff and parties are bound by the contract executed by them. The Tenancy Agreement, which terms are clear and unambiguous, must be construed in its literal and natural meaning without any addition or improvement. 1 [3] This Court finds that the Defendant has failed to prove its counter claim, thus is dismissed with costs. 1 Civil Procedure – Application to transfer proceedings – Order 57 Rule 1 ROC 2012 – Whether Kuantan High Court is more appropriate forum – Doctrine of forum non conveniens – Burden of proof on applicant – Effect of defective affidavit in opposition. 1 The Defendants’ application to disqualify Messrs. Christina Chia Law Chambers (‘CCLC’) - allowing the Defendants’ application in encl. 10 whereby prayer (b) was allowed i.e. Messrs. Christina Chia Law Chambers (‘CCLC’) is not allowed to continue to represent the Plaintiffs in this action in its entirety; 1 [1] This is the Plaintiffs’ application to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim together with joinder application (Enclosure 114), seeking amongst others, for the following reliefs- 1 (a) an order that the Plaintiffs be granted leave to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim; and 1 (b) an order that Every Glory Sdn Bhd and Base Skypower Sdn Bhd be joined as defendants in this action. 1 [2] The Defendants’ Preliminary Objection (PO). The Defendants raised a PO that Enclosure 114 is procedurally irregular, as it has not been served on the Proposed Defendants. 1 [3] This Court agrees that in the absence of the proposed parties, it would be irregular to grant such an application, as it would deprive the proposed Defendants of the opportunity to raise an objection. 1 [4] Therefore, Enclosure 114 is dismissed with costs. 1 Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment — Application for leave to amend Re-Amended Reply to Amended Defence and Re-Amended Defence to Amended Counterclaim — Whether amendments bona fide — Whether amendments altered character of suit — Whether delay or prejudice justified refusal — Whether new cause of action introduced — Rules of Court 2012, O 20 r 5(1), O 92 r 4 1 [1] The Plaintiffs filed this Suit against the Defendant alleging negligence and/or fraudulent misrepresentation to induce the Plaintiffs to purchase condominium units developed by the Defendant. The misrepresentation was pertaining to a monorail station that would be built with a covered link bridge connected to a development project known as “Vivo Residences, 9 Seputeh” (Project). 1 [2] It is trite law that the onus lies on the Plaintiff to prove his claim in order to succeed against the Defendant pursuant to sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950. 1 [3] This Court finds that on the evidence adduced, there was no assertive representation by the Defendant. In any case, it did not induce the Plaintiffs to enter into the SPAs. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim against the Defendant and hence this Court dismissed the Plaintiffs claim with costs. 1 Plaintif dan Defendan telah memeterai suatu Perintah Persetujuan yang direkodkan oleh Mahkamah berhubung dengan penyelesaian tuntutan dalam tindakan ini. Salah satu terma dalam perintah tersebut menyatakan bahawa “kos ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah.” Selepas hampir dua (2) tahun, Plaintif telah memfailkan permohonan untuk mendapatkan penaksiran kos terhadap Defendan berdasarkan perintah tersebut. Plaintif juga memohon agar Perintah Persetujuan dipinda bagi memasukkan frasa “kos dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif”, bagi membolehkan penaksiran bil kos dilaksanakan terhadap Defendan. Permohonan ini dibantah oleh pihak Defendan atas alasan bahawa tiada perintah jelas dalam Perintah Persetujuan yang mewajibkan Defendan membayar kos kepada Plaintif. Isu untuk diputuskan: (a) Sama ada Mahkamah boleh membenarkan pindaan kepada Perintah Persetujuan bagi memasukkan perintah bahawa kos dibayar oleh Defendan; (b) Sama ada frasa “kos ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah” membolehkan Plaintif memohon penaksiran bil kos terhadap Defendan; dan (c) Sama ada terdapat kekhilafan Mahkamah dalam meluluskan frasa tersebut. 1 Whether the Defendant has negligently caused damage towards the cables and/ or infrastructures owned by TMB and/ or the Plaintiff at the said Location on 1.10.2020 - Whether the Defendant has admitted its liability for the damage towards the cables and/ or infrastructures owned by TMB and/ or the Plaintiff at the said Location - Whether Plaintiff was negligent by failing to label the location of the cables, thereby contributing to the damage - Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the full sum of RM1,170,654.85 as the cost of rectification works - 1 Plaintiff has failed to establish any breach of contract, statutory duty, or constitutional right on the part of the Defendant. The Defendant acted within the bounds of the Agreement, in compliance with applicable regulatory directives, and in a manner that was measured, proportionate, and legally justified. The Plaintiff’s difficulties arose not from any wrongful act of the Defendant, but from his own conscious decision not to comply with requirements that were lawfully imposed, contractually contemplated, and operationally necessary. 1 The law does not permit a party to avoid the consequences of non-compliance and yet seek to derive an advantage therefrom. Contractual and regulatory frameworks would be rendered unworkable if compliance were optional but the benefits unconditional. In the circumstances of this case, the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to shift responsibility for the outcome of his own choices onto the Defendant. 1 Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed in its entirety. This Court awards costs to the Defendant. In this Court’s considered view, an amount of RM65,000.00 is most reasonable taking into account the facts and circumtances of this case. Therefore, this Court orders that the Plaintiff pays to the Defendant costs of RM65,000.00, to the Defendant, subject to allocator 1 keywords - breach of contract, constitutional right, regulatory directives 1 Contractual interpretation Finder's fee - Conditions for payment Project termination - Effect on obligations Burden of proof (Evidence Act) Sanctity of contract Parties bound by pleadings Adverse inference (Section 114(g)) Letter of Undertaking - Construction 1 The Plaintiff (P) sued the Defendants for fraud. There are six of them - The Fourth Defendant: Aligan Holdings Sdn Bhd (D4Co) applies to strike out the suit under Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (Rules of Court). - Should P’s suit against D4Co be summarily struck out? 1 1. The Plaintiffs who are club members of the 1st Defendant are claiming on their behalf as well as representing other club members against the 1st Defendant which is a recreation club for arbitrarily increasing the membership fees as well as transfer fees. The Plaintiffs claim against the 2nd Defendant is for breach of fiduciary duties in safeguarding the interest of the members. 1 2. The claim proceeded to a full trial where both parties relied on oral testimony as well as documentary proof to support each other’s contention. 1 26. In the upshot the Court allows the Plaintiffs but only for the Declaratory relief claimed under paragraph 39.1 and 39.3 of the Statement of Claim with a cost of RM100,000 against the 1st Defendant and RM30,000 against the 2nd Defendant. 1 This case concerns a contractual dispute between a Chinese national employed as a business manager and a Malaysian company operating hotpot restaurants. The court finds that it has jurisdiction as the claim is contractual rather than one for constructive dismissal. The defendant’s certificate under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 is defective, rendering the disputed documents inadmissible. However, the second fixed-term contract is found valid based on binding admissions and business necessity. The defendant’s conduct constitutes repudiatory breach. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff for part of the claim while the incentive claim is dismissed for insufficient proof. 1 For the dismissal of the Counterclaim, costs of RM10,000.00 is awarded each to Paul Leong and Chow. Accordingly, the registered shares under the Deceased’s name belong to him and following his Will should be transferred to Dr James Dillon and Mardi Rachel Dillon in equal shares. 1 The contractual dispute involves a three-year laundry services contract worth RM17,242,737.48 for the university's medical centre. The key issues are whether the defendant was contractually obliged to supply new linens rather than reused ones; whether the plaintiff's penalty calculation method is valid; and whether the defendant's counterclaim for allegedly wrongful deductions has merit. Despite the absence of the explicit word "new" in the contract, the court found sufficient evidence through correspondence, meeting minutes, and the defendant's conduct to establish that both parties understood that new linens were required. The court upheld the plaintiff's penalty calculation method, which includes a time element (days of delay) consistent with the contract's terms and commercial purpose. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the claimed amounts. 1 Contractual interpretation - facilities management contracts - parol evidence - penalty clauses - liquidated damages - 1 Contract law - Termination clause - Interpretation - "Mutual termination by notice" - Whether unilateral termination valid Contract interpretation - Construction of agreement - Section headings - Relevance in determining parties' intention Commercial contracts - Service level agreement - IT implementation project - Termination without cause Contract law - Breach of contract - Wrongful termination - Quantum of damages - Calculation based on percentage of work completed Contract interpretation - Holistic approach - Reading provisions together - Avoiding rendering clauses nugatory Contract law - Sanctity of contract - Court's role in interpretation - Not to rewrite or improve terms Evidence - Burden of proof - Sections 101 and 102 of Evidence Act 1950 Contract law - Contemporaneous documents - Weekly progress reports - Evidential value Contract law - Damages - Entitlement to payment for work completed prior to wrongful termination 1 [1] This is an application by the Plaintiffs for a summary judgement to be entered against the Defendant (Enclosure 6) pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). 1 [2] The Plaintiffs are claiming for liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) for late delivery of vacant possession and completing common facilities of condominium by the Defendant. 1 [3] The Defendant is a developer of a housing project known as “Mulberi Kondominium” (Project). 1 [4] The well-established legal principles applicable to applications for summary judgment have been clearly and expressly deliberated as provided by statutory provisions and decided cases. 1 [5] This Court finds that the matter in question is only about the calculation of the LAD and which calculation, whether the Plaintiffs or the Defendant, as correct? In this regard, this Court finds that the calculation of the Defendant has a basis and had given such order accordingly. 1 [6] After careful scrutiny and judicious consideration of all the evidence before this Court, including the written and oral submissions of both parties, this Court in allowing Enclosure 6 has ordered the Defendant to pay as follows- 1 “1. Gantirugi tetap yang berjumlah RM 556,560.00 dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif Ke-2; 2. Gantirugi tetap yang berjumlah RM 580,411.28 dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif Ke-3 dan Plaintif Ke-4; 3. Gantirugi tetap yang berjumlah RM 487,851.16 dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif Ke-5 dan Plaintif Ke-6; 4. Faedah atas perenggan-perenggan 1-3 di atas pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh tuntutan ini iaitu pada 5-8-2024 sehingga pembayaran penuh dan muktamad dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif; dan kos...”. 1 The 1st defendant owns two lots of land at Taman Duta, Kuala Lumpur and the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs were the prospective purchasers. The parties entered into an arrangement for the sale and purchase of the two lots of land but the transaction did not go through. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and the 1st defendant were at odds as to the cause of the aborted deal. 1 [1] Ini merupakan permohonan Defendan menurut Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012) untuk membatalkan Writ Terpinda bertarikh 15.10.2024 dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda bertarikh 15.10.2024 oleh Plaintif-plaintif terhadap Defendan (Lampiran 10). 1 [2] Mahkamah ini akhirnya bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan bahawa Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif Kedua tidak mempunyai satu kausa tindakan yang munasabah terhadap Defendan berdasarkan Kaedah 25(7), 32, 34(1) dan (2) Kaedah tersebut, di mana adalah jelas Lembaga Tatatertib Bebas mempunyai kuasa untuk mengenakan hukuman buang kerja sekiranya mendapati seorang pegawai penguatkuasa disabitkan dengan kesalahan jenayah. 1 [3] Kesalahan yang disabitkan atas Plaintif-plaintif jelas menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif-plaintif telah terlibat dalam pergaduhan di tempat awam semasa bertugas dan ianya adalah satu kesalahan yang serius. 1 [4] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, maka Lampiran 10 dibenarkan dengan kos. Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif adalah dibatalkan. 1 Beneficial ownership and proprietary rights of purchasers in winding-up context. This case concerns the plaintiffs’ claim for beneficial ownership of their respective units in the “10 Semantan” development and the right to receive copies of strata titles in the context of the defendant company’s liquidation. The Court found that the plaintiffs had entered into valid sale and purchase agreements, paid the full purchase price and taken vacant possession. The Court held that official receipts were not the only valid proof of payment. Injunctive relief was granted to restrain the liquidators from disposing of the units. The judgment affirms that beneficial ownership may be proven through circumstantial and documentary evidence. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE — CONTRACT — BREACH OF CONTRACT — SALE OF GOODS — EXECUTOR — DECEASED ESTATE — SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT — BURDEN OF PROOF — CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS — UNJUST ENRICHMENT — SECTION 31 SALE OF GOODS ACT 1957 — SECTION 33 SALE OF GOODS ACT 1957 — SECTION 63 CONTRACTS ACT 1950 — SECTION 91 EVIDENCE ACT 1950 — SECTION 94 EVIDENCE ACT 1950 — SECTION 101 EVIDENCE ACT 1950 — LIMITATION ACT 1953 1 Plaintif sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka Dahalan Bin Bidin mendakwa hartanah yang didaftarkan sebagai "Trustee" pada tahun 1972 dipindahmilik secara penipuan kepada Defendan Kedua didalam tahun 2016). Mahkamah memutuskan Plaintif tidak mempunyai locus standi untuk mencabar pemindahan kerana harta amanah tidak menjadi sebahagian harta pusaka peribadi pemegang amanah selepas kematian. Kedudukan sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka tidak memberikan hak automatik ke atas harta amanah. Plaintif gagal membuktikan dia adalah benefisiari amanah atau pemegang amanah yang dilantik mengikut Akta Pemegang Amanah 1949. 1 • Locus standi • Harta amanah • Pentadbir harta pusaka • Pembatalan writ • Akta Pemegang Amanah 1949 • Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 1 Breach of fiduciary duty by stakeholder solicitors in commercial transactions. This judgment concerns a dispute arising from a failed transaction for the purchase of medical gloves during the Covid-19 pandemic. The plaintiff sought recovery of a RM1,000,000.00 deposit paid to the 3rd defendant, a law firm acting as stakeholder. The court held that the 3rd and 4th defendants breached fiduciary duties by disbursing the deposit without fulfilling the agreed conditions. The judgment affirms that stakeholders, particularly solicitors, must act impartially and strictly comply with stakeholder terms and may be held liable for unauthorised disbursements. 1 Orders [82] This Court orders that the 1st Defendant: (i) Furnish an account to the Plaintiffs detailing all the trust money placed with him by the 1st Plaintiff within seven days of this judgment; 1 (ii) Returns all cash that remains with him to the 1st Plaintiff immediately; 1 (iii) Pay to the 1st Plaintiff the sum of RM7,000,000.00 less any amounts proven to have been returned under sub-paragraph (ii) above. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which interest of 5% shall accrue on any amount outstanding from the expiry of the one month period of this judgment until full and final settlement; 1 (iv) Pays to the Plaintiffs general damages in the sum of RM200,000.00; 1 (v) Interests of 5% on the said sum to be calculated from the date of this judgment until full and final settlement; 1 (vi) Costs of RM100,000.00, subject to allocator. 1 [83] This Court dismisses the Plaintiffs’ claims against the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants respectively. Costs of RM40,000.00 are to be paid to the 3rd and 4th Defendants, subject to allocator. Against the 5th Defendant, costs of RM40,000.00 to be paid by the Plaintiffs subject to allocator. 1 [84] The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs had sought from this Court a penal clause be attached to this Court orders. This Court grants so. 1 Contract – amount owing under contract of employment – defendant had made part payments and had in separate proceedings admitted amount owing – defendant should not be allowed to blow hot and cold – summary judgment under Order 14 rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 allowed 1 in the counterclaim - breached the statutory duties as provided under s 31 of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 [Act 586] - Plaintiff’s application was made pursuant to O. 24, rr. 3, 7, 12 and 16 of the RC 2012 1 Delay - The Proposed Amendment is a tactical manoeuvre and inconsistent with the pleaded Defence - Prejudice to the Plaintiff 1 There were two (2) applications heard together before the court. The first was Enclosure 74, in which the defendant moved the court pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“RC 2012”) to strike out paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and relief no. 1 of the Statement of Claim dated 14 August 2021. Secondly, there was Enclosure 76, which was the plaintiff's application to amend its Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 14 August 2021. 1 As for Enclosure 74, the court found that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's cause of action arose from the date of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, and not from the date of the purported discovery of fraudulent information as alleged by the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action, which challenged the validity of the extension of time granted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as incorporated in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, accrued on 22 July 2013, the date on which the Sale and Purchase Agreement was executed. Thus, the plaintiff must bring her claim for breach of contract within 6 years, i.e. by 22 July 2019, and not by 14 August 2021. It was at this point that the plaintiff, as the purchaser, could initiate an action against the defendant. 1 For the amendment application in Enclosure 76, the court found that there existed an inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing this amendment application. In this regard, there has already been a disclosure of the relevant facts in Recital D of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, which should have prompted the plaintiff to plead accordingly from the very beginning. 1 In light of the above, Enclosure 74 was allowed while Enclosure 76 was dismissed, both with costs. 1 ORDERS OF THE COURT [106] For the foregoing reasons, this Court makes the following orders: (a) Declaration: IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are bound by the terms of the Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity dated 21.12.2016 when read together with the Share Subscription Agreement dated 21.12.2016, the Letter Agreement dated 5.1.2017, and the Supplemental Agreement dated 7.9.2021, and are obligated to perform their obligations set forth therein; 1 (b) It is also DECLARED that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are in material and fundamental breach of the express terms of the said Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity dated 21.12.2016 when read together with the Share Subscription Agreement dated 21.12.2016, the Letter Agreement dated 5.1.2017, and the Supplemental Agreement dated 7.9.2021, in failing and/or neglecting to take steps pursuant to Clause 1, Clause 2 and Clause 4 of the said Deed of Undertaking to perform or cause to be performed and/or pay the sums that are payable in consequences of the default, failure or omission made by Lextrend to make payment of the Unpaid Redemption Sum with interest in accordance with the contractually agreed Redemption Timeline(s) under the Share Subscription Agreement dated 21.12.2016, the Letter Agreement dated 5.1.2017, and the Supplemental Agreement dated 7.9.2021; 1 (c) Judgment for Principal Sum: JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally for the Total Unpaid Redemption Sum comprising: (i) USD26,081,300.00;and (ii) RM94,012,500.00; 1 (d) Pre-Judgment Contractual Interest: The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff contractual interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the aforesaid principal sums, calculated from: (i) 27.6.2022 (being seven days after the due date of 20.6.2022) for the June 2022 redemption sum of USD13,002,500 and RM46,437500; (ii) 27.12.2022 (being seven days after the due date of 20.12.2022) for the December 2022 redemption sum of USD484,400 and RM2162,500; and (iii) 27.6.2023 (being seven days after the due date of 20.6.2023) for the June 2023 redemption sum of USD12,594,400 and RM45,412,500, continuing until the date of this judgment. This judgement sum is to be paid within 21 days from the dated of this judgment: 1 (e) Post-Judgment Interest: The judgment sum shall carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date when this judgement is required to be satisfied until full and final satisfaction of the judgment debt, pursuant to section 11 of the Civil Law Act 1956 and Order 42 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court 2012; 1 (f) Set-off Provision: The Plaintiff is entitled to set off against the judgment sum any net proceeds actually received from the sale of the BSA Land, after deducting all associated costs, expenses, fees, commissions, and taxes, provided that such set-off shall be limited to the amount of RM125,000,000.00 based on the credible valuation accepted by this Court. For the avoidance of doubt, the mere transfer of the BSA Land does not discharge the monetary obligation, as the Principal Agreements contemplate cash redemption, not payment in kind; and 1 (g) Costs: The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff's costs of these proceedings in the sum of RM900,000, subject to allocator. 1 [107] This Court notes that the orders made herein are without prejudice to any rights the Plaintiff may have arising from the separate Originating Summons proceedings dated 8.2.2024 concerning the transfer of the BSA Land, which remains subject to the pending appeal proceedings. 1 [108] For completeness, this Court clarifies that the contractual interest awarded herein is distinct from and additional to any interest that may be awarded in the arbitration proceedings between the Plaintiff and Lextrend, there being separate causes of action arising from different c 1 Order 12 Rule 10 Rules of Court 2012 – Application to set aside writ – Alleged jurisdiction clause of English law and English Courts – Jurisdiction clause raised in earlier striking-out application that has been dismissed – whether res judicata – Whether Jurisdiction clause was incorporated into the contract between the parties – whether reference to website or portal of a service provider is acceptable – Each case on its own facts – No nexus with England – Services performed in Malaysia – Parties and witnesses are in Malaysia 1 [1] This is an application by the Plaintiff for an interim preservation of property (Enclosure 8) pursuant to Order 29 Rule 2(1) and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) and/or Section 25 read together schedule 6 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and/or Section 51(1) of the Specific Reliefs Act 1950. 1 [2] The Plaintiff seeks the interim order to prevent the Defendant from dealing with the Defendant’s land held under Grant 25711, Lot 240, Seksyen 63, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (Land) and any proceeds from its sale under sections 256, 268, and 268A of the National Land Code 1965, as may be obtained by Malayan Banking Bhd (MBB), pending the final disposal of this action. 1 [3] The Plaintiff also seeks an order to deposit any proceeds from the sale into a joint interest-bearing account with the Defendant. 1 [4] The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff has no basis to seek for an order for interlocutory injunction as the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant. It was submitted that there is no binding agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 1 [5] Based on the above deliberations, this Court dismissed Enclosure 8 with costs. 1 Civil procedure - Application to strike out amended defence and counterclaim - Application for stay of proceedings - Order 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d) and/or Order 92 r 4 Rules of Court 2012 - Whether amended defence is an abuse of process of court - Whether striking out pleadings justified - Whether stay of proceedings appropriate pending disposal of related appeals - Principles governing stay of proceedings - Nexus between current case and related civil suits - Inherent jurisdiction of court to prevent injustice. 1 Interlocutory injunction – serious issue to be tried on conflict of laws on the rights of succession and inheritance under the laws of Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia, injunction granted to preserve the assets of the estate of the deceased and for disclosure of the assets already transferred as well an injunction to restrain dealings with the assets which may put the assets out of reach of the successful litigant 1 Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Order 14 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 — Whether defendants disclosed bona fide triable issue — Admitted and quantified debt — Subsequent repayment agreement — Whether defence a sham or afterthought — Principles governing summary disposal — Whether judgment ought to be entered summarily 1 Contract — Mandate letter — Success fees — Discrete and severable obligations — Whether single composite transaction — Construction of commercial agreements — Acknowledgment of indebtedness in contractual recital — Legal effect of express admission — Whether debtor entitled to reopen underlying merits after express acknowledgment 1 Contract — Loan agreement — Forbearance — Conversion of outstanding fees into loan — Whether repayment obligation independent and enforceable — Whether conditional upon completion or success of IPO — Effect of affirmation and election 1 Contract — Illegality — Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 s 58 — Contracts Act 1950 s 24 — Alleged unlicensed corporate finance advisory services — Whether sufficient nexus between statutory prohibition and contract sued upon — Whether repayment agreement tainted by antecedent illegality — Fully executed transaction 1 Contract — Performance — Alleged non-performance contradicted by contemporaneous documents and partial payment — Whether bare denial sufficient to resist summary judgment — Whether detrimental advice relevant to enforceability of admitted debt 1 Business Purchase Agreement (BPA) Operational Loss Payment Commercial contract interpretation Novation of contract Section 63 Contracts Act 1950 Asset, Rental, Sale & Purchase Agreement (ARSPA) Ferry operations Contractual obligations Commercial purpose Penang Port Prasarana Malaysia Public service obligation Counterclaim dismissal Contract rescission Business abandonment Commercial sensibility Contractual interpretation Long-term commitment Regulatory framework 1 1.The Defendant in this case applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim under order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules provide as follows: 1 19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 19) (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that- 1 (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; 1 (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or 1 (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be. 1 16.In this case the Court rules that the Plaintiff’s claim is time barred and therefore obviously unsustainable. 1 17.In the upshot the Defendant’s application to strike out is allowed with cost of RM 7,000. 1 Application for summary judgment allowed for the balance owing for engineering services rendered; to allow the defendant’s assertion of non-authorised use of software would amount to an overkill in driving the plaintiff from the seat of judgment 1 Headnotes – if the defendant developer chooses to switch a residential development to a commercial development, it remains liable to pay LAD under the Schedule H sale and purchase agreement it has already entered into if it is unable to deliver vacant possession and common facilities of a residential development unit as contracted for within the time prescribed by the Schedule H sale and purchase agreement 1 Melalui Lampiran 6, Defendan telah memfailkan suatu permohonan untuk membatalkan Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 (a), (b), (c) dan/atau (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa ini adalah suatu kes yang jelas dan ketara yang mewajarkan Mahkamah membatalkan tindakan plaintif. Ini adalah kerana tidak wujud sebarang hubungan kontrak di antara plaintif dan defendan. Kontrak untuk Perkhidmatan adalah di antara defendan dan Hebat Realtors yang merupakan sebuah entiti perniagaan melalui Pengarah Urusannya, sedangkan plaintif adalah sebagai sebuah syarikat yang dikenali sebagai Hebat Realtors Sdn Bhd. Lampiran 6 telah dibenarkan dengan kos sejumlah RM2,000.00 tertakluk kepada alokatur. 1 in relation to the Plaintiff's submission on the Defendant's failure to comply with the court's directions as to the timeline to file interlocutory applications - the Defendant's application to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim (‘SoC’) under limb (d) of O. 18, r. 19(1) RC 2012 1 In Enclosure 12, the plaintiff is seeking the amount of RM1,315,303.00 in summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) for the alleged maintenance services rendered to the defendant. Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not render such services to it. The court found that not only that the parties had a binding contract between them but that the first objection to the issue of payment raised by the defendant only came about after the action has been filed, which was not contemporaneous with the material time of the event. As a result, Enclosure 12 is allowed with costs of RM5,000.00, subject to allocatur. 1 Conclusion [24] For all the foregoing reasons, this Court found that the Plaintiff’s suit is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process. See Lee Teck Meng v Prem Kumar a/l Ganasaratnam & Ors [2021] MLJU 394; Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 1 MLRA 611; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993]; [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 2 AMR 1969; Zakaria Mohamed Esa v Dato Abdul Aziz Ahmad & Ors [1984] 2 MLRH 494; [1985] 2 MLJ 222. 1 [25] The Plaintiff appeared to be an officious bystander who has taken it upon herself to meddle in the private affairs of a family to which she has no legal connection beyond siblinghood with the Deceased. Such interference cannot be countenanced by the courts. 1 [26] The Defendants’ application was allowed with costs of RM10,000 to be paid forthwith, subject to allocator. The Plaintiff’s suit was thereby struck out. The security for costs ordered earlier provided were to be returned. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE - Application for leave to file defence out of time - appearance entered 15 days late - whether sufficient explanation for delay - whether procedural steps taken without leave - whether prejudice caused to plaintiff - whether discretion of Court should be exercised in applicants favour - Notice to Produce filed without leave - procedural non-compliance - application dismissed and costs awarded 1 By way of Enclosure 6, the defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim dated 2 October 2024 under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). In addition, this application is being made under Order 92 rule 4 of the ROC 2012. 1 This suit involves a doctor at a private hospital suing a group of companies that provide insurance services and benefits for their customers. The plaintiff is essentially seeking declarations that the act of removing his name from a list of participating specialists, for which the defendants granted a cashless facility, had no basis, was made mala fide, and was invalid. As a consequence, the plaintiff is seeking damages and loss of profits. 1 The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the cashless facility did not benefit the plaintiff as a participating specialist but was intended to benefit their customers who were the plaintiff's patients. As a result, the plaintiff has no rights to the cashless facility in the manner he is trying to argue now. 1 As a result of analysing the parties' arguments, the Court cannot in any way identify a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants since there is no sufficient proximity between them to create this type of relationship. There was never any voluntary assumption of responsibility by the defendants in that regard. Consequently, the Court finds that the plaintiff's interest in the Guarantee Letter Facility does not create sufficient legal proximity. The plaintiff was neither a patient nor a customer of the defendants to bring about this situation. He was only indirectly benefitting from the GL Facility offered to his patients. Here, the plaintiff was only dealing with his patients. In this aspect, sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendants was not present. As a result, there can be no direct duty of care arising out of these facts. In light of the above, Enclosure 6 is allowed with costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocatur. 1 application by the 1st Defendant in encl. 14 and the 2nd Defendant in encl. 12 to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim - applications were made pursuant to limbs (a), (b) or (d) of O. 18, r. 19(1), RC 2012 1 the relationship between D1, D4 and D5 is one of landlord and tenant and vicarious liability cannot attach to D4 and D5 as there is no employer-employee relationship between D1, D4 and D5 - D4 and D5 are not responsible for the operation and maintenance of the machines on the Property. This responsibility lies solely with D1 and D1 is not an agent or servant of D4 and D5 - the Plaintiff has no locus standi to bring the suit against D4 and D5, having subrogated all of its right and remedies for any claim in respect of the fire incident to Takaful Ikhlas and Generali. 1 as a tenant of D1’s Factory, D1 is a servant and/ or agent to the owner of D1’s Factory who are D4 and D5 and therefore, D4 and D5 are vicariously liable to the Plaintiff, D1 was carrying out the works, which led to the fire, with D4’s and D5’s consent; and - the Plaintiff has the right to bring the action against D4 and D5 regardless of the subrogation of rights 1 summary judgment pursuant to O. 81 of the Rules of Court 2012 - Whether there is a triable issue in relation to the date of delivery of vacant possession of the Tower E Unit - Whether the Defendant has waived Clause 25.1(c) of the SPA - 1 By way of Enclosure 37, the plaintiff is seeking from this court to have a protective order imposed over the documents they intend to produce pending the determination of this action, allegedly so as to protect the confidentiality of those documents. In this aspect, it seems trite that the court has the power to grant a protective order by virtue of its inherent power. Pursuant thereto, the court finds a protective order is necessary in order to protect the plaintiffs' commercial interests and prevent their competitors from accessing them. In light of the same, Enclosure 37 is therefore allowed with costs in the cause. 1 Whether there was suppression of facts by P1 - Whether P1 has a good arguable case - Whether there is a real risk of assets being dissipated 1 By way of Enclosure 8, the defendants sought an order to strike out the plaintiffs' Writ of Summons dated 22.10.2024 and Amended Statement of Claim dated 13.12.2024 in accordance with Order 18 rule 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("RC 2012"). 1 The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and constituted an abuse of the process of the court. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs alleged that they had imposed the purported interest on an illegal money lending contract. Therefore, the defendants argued that since the plaintiffs alleged they entered into an illegal moneylending contract, the defendants argued that courts have consistently refused to enforce rights under illegal contracts. On the part of the plaintiffs, they admitted that they were indeed claiming for the refund of an excessively imposed illegal interest by the defendants. 1 In this regard, the court found that it would be considered to be participating or legitimising an illegal contract if it continued to hear and determine the case during a full trial since these facts had been established at that point. There can be no legitimisation of illegal contracts by this court. It was a strict court policy to deter illegal agreements of this nature. Therefore, this was a plainly obvious case warranting the striking out of the plaintiffs' claim. 1 In light of the above, Enclosure 8 was therefore allowed with costs. 1 Striking Out Order is a final order which renders this Court functus officio, and the Court does not have the power to set aside its own final Order - whether Abdul Kader’s non-compliance with court's directions on 24.9.2024 1 sahabat Mahkamah; penyampaian sah dari segi undang-undang; Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan gagal disampaikan sebelum tamat tempoh; Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan tidak lagi sah untuk tujuan penyampaian; penyampaian di Iuar bidang kuasa. 1 By way of Enclosure 10, the defendants sought an order of transfer and consolidation of this action ("Suit 667") with another civil action registered as Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-666-10/2024 ("Suit 666"). The court found that it did not have the discretion to transfer Suit 667 to another court within the same division of the Kuala Lumpur High Court. The court also found that it was not in the interests of justice and was particularly undesirable to consolidate both suits, especially since the Pre Trial Case Management ("PTCM") directions had been issued for Suit 667. The application was therefore dismissed with costs of RM3,000.00. 1 A dispute has arisen over the right to operate a car park in a building. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had renewed their contract to operate the car park for another term. The contract was later broken, said the plaintiff. The defendants disputed this claim, claiming the contract had expired and that the second defendant did not renew it. 1 There were 4 interlocutory applications before the court. Enclosure 3 was the plaintiff's application for an inter partes injunction prohibiting the defendants from executing any contract to operate the car park with third parties until the final disposal of this case. Enclosures 12 and 37 were the first and second defendants' applications to set aside the ex parte order. Enclosure 14 was the first defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim. 1 The court found that there was no serious issue to be tried. The plaintiff had accepted the fact that their contract had expired and accepted the Notice of Expiry issued by the second defendant in good faith and without objection at the time. The court also found that damages would still provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to disclose the above important facts to the court in a full and frank manner. The court also found that the first defendant was not a party to any agreement with the plaintiff. It was the second defendant. 1 As a result of the above, Enclosure 3 was dismissed with costs, while Enclosures 12, 37 and 14 were allowed with costs. 1 This Court is lastly not satisfied that the failure to answer to the show cause letter itself amounted to contempt. The Sessions Court ruling on this is also set aside. In the premises, the sentence of 7 days imprisonment is quashed. Costs of RM15,000 is awarded to the 2nd Defendant. 1 Tay Siok Hwee co-owned property 50-50 with the first defendant. During the defendants' divorce proceedings, a consent judgment awarded the entire property to the second defendant if unsold within one year. The plaintiff was not notified or involved in these proceedings. The High Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, declaring the consent judgment provision null and void. The court ruled that: (1) the divorce court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's property since she wasn't a party; (2) the judgment was obtained through fraud by concealing the plaintiff's ownership; (3) affecting a non-party's rights without notice violated natural justice; and (4) property rights cannot be extinguished without due process. 1 Property rights; consent judgment; natural justice; matrimonial property; co-ownership; fraud; summary judgment; third-party rights; divorce proceedings 1 This court allowed the application under Section 41 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 to compel production and forensic examination of her deceased father's alleged will. The will, executed one day before death, excluded all daughters in favour of sons, with the Plaintiffs refusing examination for seven years despite multiple requests. The Court held the 1st Defendant qualified as a "person interested" with intestate succession rights and that the Plaintiffs' admission established possession. Suspicious circumstances—including timing (executed while critically ill), daughter exclusion, inconsistent representations and prolonged concealment—warranted expert examination essential for investigating forgery allegations. 1 Probate and Administration Act 1959, Section 41; will production; forensic examination; person interested; testamentary capacity; forgery allegations; intestate succession; Distribution Act 1958; burden of proof; Evidence Act 1950 1 Orders of this Court [48] Based on the evidence and the assessment as stated above, with the application of the relevant laws, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has proven his claim on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, this Court’s orders are as follows: (a) The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants have breached the revised sale and purchase agreement pertaining to the Land 1 (b) The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants have wrongfully terminated the revised sale and purchase agreement pertaining to the Land 1 (c) The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants return of the deposit paid of RM39,550.00 to the Plaintiff forthwith 1 (d) The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendant pay to the Plaintiff general damages in the sum of RM237,330.00 1 (e) Interest of 5% per annum on the judgment sums awarded by this Court from the date of this judgment until full and final settlement 1 (f) Costs of this proceeding is awarded to the Plaintiff. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are to costs of RM20,000, subject to allocator. 1 Plaintiff’s application for an ad interim injunction vide seeking to restrain the Defendant, from enforcing a by-law that prohibits short-term rental (“STR”) activities within the residential component and from issuing further notices, invoices, or fines pending disposal of the main suit. Plaintiff sought the following interim reliefs: (a) An injunction to restrain the MC from enforcing or imposing the fines and invoices above referred to; (b) An injunction to restrain the MC from issuing further notices or fines in respect of the prohibition on STR activities; and (c) An injunction to restrain the MC from deactivating the Plaintiff’s access cards or restricting entry to his units and common facilities. 1 Court must be satisfied that: 1 (a) there is a serious issue to be tried; (b) damages would not be an adequate remedy; (c) the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction; and (d) the injunction sought will preserve, and not alter, the status quo. 1 Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk membatalkan tuntutan indemniti yang telah dikemukakanterhadapnya oleh Defendan Pertama. berbangkit daripada tindakan utama yang difailkan oleh Plaintif, terhadap kedua-dua Defendan berhubung kehilangan wang hasil jual beli sebidang tanah pusaka yang melibatkan jumlah sebanyak RM600,000.00. Plaintif telah memulakan tindakan utama terhadap Defendan Pertama bagi menuntut ganti rugi am dan ganti rugi khas atas kehilangan wang sejumlah RM600,000 tersebut akibat kecuaian dan fraud yang didakwa dilakukan oleh Defendan Pertama dan Kedua dalam mengendalikan urusan pembayaran hasil jual beli tanah pusaka. 1 The Defendant’s Counterclaim is dismissed. She had not discharged her burden of proving her claims. On the Plaintiff’s claim, as the finding is in his favour, costs of RM45,000 is required to be paid by the Defendant, subject to allocator. A penal notice to be endorsed on this judgment. 1 Application for leave to amend defence and counterclaim. The case concerns the defendant’s application for leave to amend her Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim under O20 r5 of RC 2012. The court finds that the defendant had deliberately disregarded clear case management directions and attempted to regularise unauthorised pleadings. The Court holds that the purported amendment improperly sought to introduce a fresh counterclaim without compliance with O15 r2 of RC 2012 and was procedurally defective. The application lacked bona fides and constituted an abuse of process. The application was dismissed. 1 A guarantor sought discharge from his guarantee obligations after secured assets were stripped and devalued from RM100 million to RM1.79 million. The High Court struck out the claim, holding that the plaintiff contracted as a "primary obligor" not a surety, and therefore could not rely on sections 92 and 94 of the Contracts Act 1950 which protect only traditional sureties. The judgment reinforces that statutory protections for sureties do not extend to primary obligors who have contractually assumed direct liability.The claims were also barred by res judicata, limitation, and constituted abuse of process. 1 Primary obligor, Surety, Guarantee, Striking out, Res judicata, Abuse of process, Limitation 1 [1] As part of this action, the plaintiff seeks vacant possession of a house which the plaintiff claims is his since he is the registered owner of the property as stated in the Grant of Title and that his late brother only temporarily occupied the property as allowed by the plaintiff. 1 [2] The plaintiff is also seeking damages, costs, and the removal of a private caveat placed on the property by the second defendant. 1 [3] On the other hand, the defendants' counterclaim demands that the plaintiff transfer the property to the second defendant. This is on the premise that the plaintiff is holding the property in trust for the second defendant and the second defendant's brother. 1 [4] The court finds that the defendants have satisfied the elements of a trust with evidence showing that the plaintiff holds the property on trust for his nephews, the second defendant and his brother. 1 [5] As a consequence, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, while at the same time the defendants’ counterclaim is allowed with costs of RM25,000.00, subject to allocatur. 1 Interlocutory injunction. Validity of contract. Adequacy of damages. Proprietary interest. Caveat. The plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from disposing of property pending trial. The application arose from an alleged agreement to purchase a house which collapsed after the plaintiff refused to sign a consent form required for a guarded community. The application was dismissed. No concluded contract existed. Balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiff and damages were an adequate remedy. The court also held that the registered caveat sufficiently protected the plaintiff’s alleged interest in the property. 1 1. The Plaintiff in this case sought a Declaration from the Court to annul two agreements i.e. a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) and a Deferred Payment Plan Agreement (DPP) entered with the Defendant a licensed Developer for the purchase of property developed by the Defendant. 1 2. The Defendant in turn counter claimed against the Plaintiffs for the breach of these two agreements. 1 3. The case went to a full trial wherein the Plaintiff and Defendant adduced oral, as well as documentary evidence contained in the Bundle of Documents filed in Court. The parties also filed agreed statement of facts and issues to be tried in order to define the precise dispute in this case. 1 50. Based on the factors above the Court rules both the SPA and DPP are enforceable contracts, the terms of which have been breached by the Plaintiffs themselves. It is trite law that the Plaintiffs cannot come to Court with dirty hands, which they have in this case, to avoid paying the full purchase price of the properties they have bought and enjoyed the use of. 1 51. In the upshot the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant is dismissed whereas the Defendant’s counter claim for the payment of the balance purchase payment under the SPA is allowed. This balance purchase payment is to be paid within 6 months from the date of judgement failing which the ownership of the properties will revert to the Defendant. 1 52. The Plaintiff are also directed to pay the cost of proceeding in the sum of RM100,000 within 1 month from the date of judgement. 1 The High Court dismissed a negligence claim by a subsidiary management corporation against a licensed land surveyor who prepared a Special Plan under the Strata Titles Act 1985. The court found that the claim was essentially a challenge to administrative approvals by JUPEM and PTG, which should have been addressed through judicial review under O 53 ROC 2012. It held that the surveyor owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff, as such a duty did not exist when the work was carried out in 2017 (established only in 2019). The claim amounted to abuse of process by bypassing judicial review's procedural safeguards and time limits, especially given the five-year delay. The Special Plan had been validly approved by a comprehensive resolution (67.6% support) and regulatory authorities, creating settled arrangements relied upon by three subsidiary management corporations since 2019. 1 Striking out - strata property - judicial review - professional negligence - duty of care - abuse of process - administrative law 1 Defendan-Defendan telah memfailkan permohonan untuk membatalkan tuntutan Plaintif atas alasan bahawa pernyataan tuntutan Plaintif tidak mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah, adalah remeh, menyusahkan serta merupakan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Isu utama yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah seperti yang berikut: (a) Sama ada terdapat duty of care antara pihak-pihak dalam proses penilaian tender; (b) Sama ada terdapat hubungan fidusiari antara Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan; (c) Sama ada wujud representasi salah oleh DefendanDefendan dalam proses tawaran tender; dan (d) Sama ada tindakan Plaintif mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah di sisi undang-undang. 1 This case concerned a claim by the plaintiff that her late mother held shares in Madras Store on trust for her nine children. The court held that the alleged express trust failed to satisfy the three certainties, particularly certainty of intention, as evidenced by the deceased’s Will and express denial of any trust. The doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel further barred re-litigation as the issue had been conclusively determined in the 2013 proceedings. The alternative claim for constructive trust also failed for want of unconscionability or unjust enrichment. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with costs. 1 [1] This is an application by the Plaintiff to enter Summary Judgment (Enclosure 6) against the Defendant under Order 81 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012). 1 [2] In this Suit, the Plaintiff seeks relief for specific performance and his rights to set-off the accrued Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) against the final 20% progress claim under the statutory contract (Schedule H of HDR 1989). 1 [3] This Suit was filed before the voluntary winding up of the Defendant. The SPA is a mutual dealing which constitutes mutual debts that took place before the winding up of the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have met the requirement under Section 526 of CA 2016. 1 [4] Based on the above deliberations, this Court allows prayers (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Enclosure 6 with costs. The total LAD is in the amount of RM 245,802.86, calculated from 19.9.2013 until 31.12.2021. 1 Conclusion [49] Having evaluated the evidence in its entirety, including the testimony of all witnesses, this Court observes that the Plaintiffs’ motivation to acquire units adjoining, or in close proximity to, a shopping complex and hotel appears to have informed their subjective expectations that the purchase of units in Eclipse Residence would confer an immediate or automatic entitlement to such amenities. However, on an objective assessment of the evidence, those amenities formed part of the broader conceptual plans for the Pan’gaea Development. Such plans, without more, constitute statements of future intention rather than binding promises or representations of present fact. It has been established that an expression of future expression cannot amount to a representation of fact. See IJM Construction Sdn Bhd v. Lingakaran Luar Butterworth (Penang) Sdn Bhd & Anor (Court of Appeal) [2024] 4 MLJ 340 and Chia Tien Foh & Ors v. Lo Man Heng & Others (Court of Appeal) [2015] 1 LNS 1219. 1 [50] This Court accordingly finds that there was no representation amounting to a promise that the hotel, shopping complex, or central park would be in existence at the time the Plaintiffs purchased their respective units, or that such amenities would be delivered contemporaneously with the construction of Eclipse Residence. As confirmed by DW1 and DW2, Eclipse Residence constituted one phase within the larger Pan’gaea Development, envisaged to be integrated with other phases over time. The evidence further establishes that, as matters presently stand, Eclipse Residence is situated adjacent to The Paragon and Solstice. See Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v. Teh Kim Dar @ Tee Kim (“Sim Thong Realty”) [2003] 3 MLJ 460 1 [51] The contractual relationship between the parties was governed by the respective Sale and Purchase Agreements, which confined the Defendant’s obligations to the units as advertised and represented. There was no complaint as to the layout or construction of the units themselves, and the Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims relating to alleged defects in Suit No. 734. The Plaintiffs’ case, therefore, rests solely on alleged misrepresentations extraneous to the contractual bargain. 1 [52] In the circumstances, this Court finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of any false or actionable representation capable of founding inducement. In the absence of proof of misrepresentation, the Plaintiffs’ claims for general damages premised on the alleged loss of promised amenities, as well as their claims for aggravated damages arising from the Defendant’s conduct, necessarily fail. See Shen & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Jutawarna Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 7 MLJ 183. 1 [53] Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed in their entirety. 1 [54] Costs awarded to the Defendant reflect the protracted trial (11 days of trial and 64 witnesses), resources utilized including judicial time as the Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to re-evaluate their case and position. The learned counsel or the Defendant prayed for RM5,000.00 per purchase of the unit of Eclipse Residence. This Court finds the said amount reasonable. 1 [55] The Plaintiffs therefore are ordered to pay to the Defendant the total sum of RM320,000.00 as costs, subject to allocator. 1 1. The 1st Plaintiff (P1) filed this Suit against the Defendants, alleging that they have acted in conspiracy to injure P1 and interfered with P1’s business, causing it to suffer losses and damages. 2. P1 seeks a declaration and damages against the Defendants, whereas the 2nd Plaintiff (P2) seeks payment for a personal loan from the 3rd Defendant (D3). 3. The Defendants have also filed a counterclaim against P1. 4. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs’ claim against D1, D2 and D3 but dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim against D4, D5 and D6. This Court also allowed D4’s counterclaim against P1, while the counterclaims of D1, D2 and D3 against P1 are dismissed. P2’s claim against D3 was also dismissed. 1 In this action, the plaintiff challenges the act of the defendants that allegedly led to his wrongful arrest under section 3(1) of the Drug Dependent (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 ("Act 283") as well as his subsequent wrongful detention allegedly made under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("Act 316"). The defendants, however, argue that the arrest and detention were lawful under Act 283 and Act 316. 1 The Court finds that the plaintiff was arrested in compliance with the law under section 3 of Act 283. A reasonable suspicion of drug dependency led to the plaintiff's arrest in this case, as defined in section 3(1) of Act 283. As for the second arrest, the Court finds that it was made in accordance with section 3 of Act 316. This section provides that any police officer may, without a warrant, arrest and detain a person for the purpose of investigation if the officer has reason to believe that there are grounds to justify his detention under section 6(1) of Act 316. 1 However, the Court finds that the Minister's failure to consider the 2nd defendant's complete report constitutes a violation of section 3(3) of Act 316. This is due to the fact that such a requirement has a mandatory effect on the part of the investigating officer. Here, the investigating officer did not provide his complete report to the Minister of Home Affairs. Section 3(3) of Act 316 mandates that the 2nd defendant submit a complete report to the minister. As such, this failure proves fatal to the defendants' conduct in detaining the plaintiff. 1 Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment has been proven; however, only in relation to the Detention Order. 1 Notice of Application seeks to strike out part of the Plaintiff’s claim as pleaded in the Writ and Statement of Claim pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. application is premised on Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the ROC 2012, on the following grounds: (a) That the said claims disclose no reasonable cause of action; (b) That they are scandalous, frivolous, and/or vexatious; (c) That they are obviously unsustainable; and/or (d) That they constitute an abuse of the Court’s process. 1 The Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff failed to perform and comply with its obligations under the Term Sheet despite the Defendant having granted several extensions of time to the Plaintiff, which ultimately resulted in the Term Sheet lapsing and/or expiring. 1 Court’s power to strike out pleadings must be exercised with caution. However, where the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action, and are plainly inconsistent with binding contractual terms, it is the Court’s duty to prevent abuse of process. In such circumstances, the judicial discretion under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC 2012 must be exercised to ensure that only justiciable claims proceed to trial. 1 This decision does not preclude the parties from raising these issues at trial on para 40 (b) and the counterclaim, nor should it be taken as a ruling on the ultimate merit of the Plaintiff’s claims. It is simply a recognition that those matters are not suitable for summary determination. The Plaintiff’s claim under paragraph 40(b) and the Defendant’s counterclaim shall proceed to full trial. 1 Enclosures 10 and 28 are the defendants' applications for leave to file the said applications out of time as well as their applications to set aside the Judgment in Default dated 12 December 2018 ("JID"). The Court finds that the service of the JID was regular. The defendants also failed to raise meritorious defences. Moreover, the defendants did not explain why both Enclosure 10 and Enclosure 28 were filed late. 1 [1] This is an application by the Plaintiff to enter Summary Judgment (Enclosure 5) against the Defendant under Order 81 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012). 1 [2] The Plaintiff seeks relief for specific performance and his rights to set-off the accrued Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) against the final 20% progress claim under the statutory contract (Schedule H of HDR 1989). 1 [3] Based on the above deliberations, this Court allows prayers (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Enclosure 5 with costs. The LAD is calculated from 19.9.2013 until 31.12.2021. 1 This Court’s Orders [67] This Court hereby makes the following orders: (i) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of RM5,373,701.54 within one month from the date to be calculated of this judgment 1 (ii) Interest of 5% per annum on the judgment sum from 3.11.2025 until full and final settlement 1 (iii) The Plaintiff is awarded costs of this proceeding. Costs of RM70,000.54 is to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff forthwith, subject to allocator. 1 Section 55, 57 & 73 Bills of Exchange Act 1949 – A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a banker payable on demand – Cheques issued pursuant to settlement agreement for full and final settlement of dispute – In an action based on contract, the plaintiff has to prove consideration – In an action based on a bill of exchange, consideration is presumed unless drawer of bill can prove otherwise – Defendant failed to prove no consideration – Photographs of Defendant signing Settlement Agreement and cheques precluded Defendant from extricating himself – Photographic evidence of Defendant issuing cheques sufficient for Defendant to be held as the drawer of the bills – Immaterial that the cheques were dishonoured due to signatures differing from specimen signatures – Bad faith on the part of the Defendant in deliberately signing differently on the cheques – Privity of contract – Plaintiff not a party to a subsequent agreement signed by the Defendant with others – No triable issue – Summary Judgment justified 1 CONTRACT — Formation — Existence of contract — Whether valid and binding contract formed between parties — Objective test to determine intention of parties — Conduct of parties — Evidence Act 1950, s 101 CONTRACT — Intermediary — Role of intermediary in facilitating payments — Whether intermediary assumes contractual obligations — Whether intermediary liable for refund of deposit CONTRACT — Deposit — Purpose of deposit — Whether deposit or part payment — Refund of deposit — Whether intermediary liable to refund deposit paid to third-party supplier EVIDENCE — Burden of proof — Contract formation — Requirement to prove existence of facts asserted — Evidence Act 1950, s 101 AGENCY — Intermediary — Acting on behalf of another party — No assumption of contractual liability — National Union of Bank Employees v Mayban Securities Sdn Bhd [2014] 1 LNS 391 applied CONTRACT — Intention to create legal relations — Objective test — Conduct of parties — Ayer Hitam Tin Dredging Malaysia Bhd v YC Chin Enterprises Sdn Bhd [1994] 3 CLJ 133 followed CONTRACT — Deposit — Purpose of securing performance — Distinction between deposit and part payment — Morello Sdn Bhd v Jaques International Sdn Bhd [1995] 2 CLJ 23 applied CONTRACT — Valid contract — Requirements — Separate and definite parties — Consensus ad idem — Intention to create legal relations — Consideration — Prism Leisure Sdn Bhd v Lumut Marine Resort Bhd [2002] 5 CLJ 391 followed 1 This case concerns claims by parcel owners of K Residence Condominium against the developer, landowner and directors for alleged mismanagement causing diminution in unit values and loss of rental income. The Court held that while the plaintiffs had locus standi to pursue personal claims, no contractual nexus or basis for lifting the corporate veil existed against the 2nd to the 4th defendants. The plaintiffs’ valuation evidence was methodologically flawed, the alleged losses amounted to mere “paper losses” and only one of thirty-seven plaintiffs testified. The claim was dismissed with costs. Principles of privity apply, evidential burden and compensable damage. 1 In this action, the plaintiff is claiming back the sum of RM500,000.00 being the partial deposit paid by the plaintiff pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement dated 12 June 2020 (“Memorandum of Agreement”) wherein the plaintiff was appointed as a mining operator by the defendant being the main contractor for the said mining works, which include excavating, extracting, removing, transporting and selling extracted sand at the river mouth in Tanjung Agas, Pekan, Pahang. 1 Meanwhile, the defendant also counterclaims not only the balance of half of the deposit that the plaintiff should have paid to the defendant but also a declaration that the RM500,000.00 deposit paid by the defendant should be forfeited. 1 The court finds that both parties had breached the memorandum of agreement. Thus, the fairest and best option is for the parties to return to their original status quo prior to the creation of the memorandum of agreement. With these findings, the plaintiff is limited to a claim for the return of the deposit paid, while the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs delayed in making this application - Whether the Plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure - Whether there are bona fide issues to be tried - Balance of convenience - Undertaking as to damages 1 Contract – a clickwrap contract can come into being if it can proved that the party has signified his acceptance of the agreement electronically in place of putting pen to paper Contract – it would be contrary to public policy and wholly unfair to deprive a party of his entitlement to passive income already earned on grounds of absenteeism occurring after the passive income has been earned and failure to give the requisite notice to resign 1 Order 15 Rule 6 Rules of Court 2012 – Leave to add new defendants – Court has a discretion to add parties at any stage of proceedings – Joinder should not result in delay and postponement of trial – No delay in filing joinder application – Reasonable to name other partners of a firm as co-defendants – S.11 Partnership Act 1961 applicable – Every partner in a firm is liable jointly with the other partners – No change to Plaintiff’s cause of action – Joinder will ensure complete determination of the issues – Joinder to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings 1 Section 138 (4) Evidence Act 1950 Recalling witness Reopening case Judicial discretion Civil procedure Joint Venture Agreement Post-trial application Change of solicitors Documentary evidence Witness testimony Former director testimony Abuse of process Miscarriage of justice Discretionary power Admissibility of evidence Finality of litigation Counsel incompetence Common Bundle of Documents High Court Malaya Civil litigation 1 Striking-out application – Evidence proves the plaintiff’s claim is unsustainable – Onus shifts to the plaintiff to adduce evidence to show that his pleaded claim is not obviously unsustainable – Contract between companies for manpower services – Plaintiff a director of company that contracted to provide manpower services – Plaintiff sent by his company to provide services as Drilling Supervisor for the Defendant – No payment ever made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff – Defendant paid manpower company – No privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant – Plaintiff not an employee of the Defendant – In any event, claims for unjust unfair or unjust dismissal ought to be filed in Industrial Court – Plaintiff’s claim for unfair dismissal is obviously unsustainable 1 The plaintiffs in this action are asking for a declaration that the Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") that they entered into with the first defendant for the sale of their shares in a company be declared terminated as a result of the first defendant's failure to pay them the purchase price, rendering it null and void. The plaintiffs are also seeking not only the return of their shares, but also seeking payment of the purchase price. 1 Meanwhile, the defendants counterclaim for RM5,000,000.00, claiming that the plaintiffs have damaged their reputation when the plaintiff allegedly deceived the defendants by hiding some facts in the SPA thereby defaming the defendants. 1 The plaintiffs' case is fundamentally flawed because they seek the return of the sale shares as well as the purchase price from the defendants. In this matter, the plaintiffs failed to make an election, which resulted in inconsistency between the relief requested by the plaintiffs and may also constitute unjust enrichment. 1 Meanwhile, upon analysing the defendants' pleadings, it appears that they have abandoned their pleaded case of defamation and are now advancing new issues in their counterclaim. The defendants thus cannot succeed due to the fact that the defendants have not pleaded on any basis for advancing their new arguments. 1 Based on the foregoing, the court dismisses both the plaintiffs' action and the defendants' counterclaim, with no order as to costs. 1 External auditor appointed by management corporation of strata development – Whether duty of care owed by auditor to an individual proprietor of a parcel in a strata development – Auditor audited maintenance account and the sinking fund account – Whether purpose of audit solely for compliance with S.62(1)(c) Strata Management Act 2013 – Professional opinion rendered in commercial contract – Whether any duty of care owed to other persons who discovered the opinion and choose to act upon it – Whether 3 questions in Caparo Industries Plc applicable to impose duty of care – Whether the damage suffered is reasonably foreseeable – Whether there is a relationship of proximity between the parties – Whether fair and reasonable the duty of care – Whether action against auditor ought to be struck out under O.18 r.19 1 Similar plea in earlier civil suit decided after full trial – High Court judgment was upheld by Court of Appeal – Res judicata – Clear case of Plaintiff failing to perform Settlement Agreement – No basis to sue solicitors for opposing party – No basis to allege conspiracy – Obviously unsustainable claim – Striking out application ought to be allowed – Removal of private caveats – Only those with registrable interest in the land title or a claim to registrable interest may enter a private caveat – Caveator liable under S.329 NLC to pay compensation if caveat wrongfully entered 1 Evidence – as a general rule all facts must be proved by evidence, save for any which parties agree to and are known as agreed or admitted facts. 1 Contract – the term 'as is where is' basis cannot be implied and must be expressly stated in the contract, communicated and understood between parties. Evidence - Documentary evidence produced and tendered that is not challenged by the plaintiff is sufficient to provide proof of a claim. 1 In this action, the plaintiffs are seeking declarations and consequential reliefs to the effect that 90,000 shares in the company known as Muara Emas Sdn Bhd ("the company"), which are currently being held by the first and second defendants in the total number of 60,000 and 30,000 shares respectively, are held on trust by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiffs. 1 On the other hand, the defendants claim that the Trust Deeds between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which allegedly prove the defendants are holding the plaintiffs' shares in trust, are invalid. The defendants had never agreed to the Trust Deeds, let alone signed them. As a result, the defendants claim their signatures were forged. To the defendants, this proves only one thing: the shares are theirs legally. 1 The court finds that there is clear evidence that can be derived from the undisputed facts that there is sufficient evidence that the defendants intended to expressly create a trust to protect the plaintiffs' interests. These Trust Deeds clearly reveal that, amongst others, the defendants are holding those shares solely and exclusively for the plaintiffs' benefit. 1 In light of the above, the plaintiffs' claim has been allowed with costs, subject to allocatur. 1 Court dismissed an application for misjoinder of defendants in a commercial dispute as it was barred by res judicata, was filed after trial commenced, and lacked merit. Evidence showed the defendant company was properly involved in the transaction, and directors faced valid liability under Section 540(1) of the Companies Act 2016 for fraudulent trading. 1 Misjoinder; Res judicata; Fraudulent trading; Director's liability 1 Civil Procedure – Professional Negligence – Fiduciary Duty – Res Judicata – Abuse of Process – Striking Out - Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b), (c), and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 and Section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964- res judicata, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process 1 Whether the Defendant has breached their obligation to obtain the individual strata title under the SPAs - Whether the Defendant has failed to apply and obtain the individual strata title for the respective units of the Condominium in favour of the Plaintiffs within a reasonable time in accordance to the STA 1985 - Whether the Plaintiffs have suffered the following losses as the Defendant’s failure in Issue 1: (a) the Plaintiffs have been deprived of the usage and enjoyment of the property as the registered strata title owners; (b) the Plaintiffs are unable to establish a Management Corporation to manage all affairs of the condominium freely as the registered owners of the condominium as they are still dependent on the Defendant as the registered owner of the Master Title; and (c) in the event, the Defendant faces any legal problem, the Plaintiffs’ interest in their respective units will be affected due to the total reliance on the Defendant as the registered owner of the Master Title - If the Plaintiffs suffered the losses, whether the Defendant is liable to pay damages to the Plaintiffs and how much should the quantum be - Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs pleaded in paragraph 38(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Statement of Claim 1 It has been alleged in this action that the plaintiff's family arranged for care to be provided at home to a patient through an arrangement made between the defendants, who are two doctors, the hospital where the doctors worked, and a company providing home nursing assistance. The plaintiff claims that too little was done to ensure that the patient with special needs was discharged home in safe hands, resulting in the patient's death after two episodes of oxygen desaturation. 1 The defendants oppose this action. According to them, the patient died at home rather than while under the doctors' care. In addition, the hospital was not required to train nurses to care for the deceased patient at home. A nursing care company also claims to have followed the care plan in accordance with its duties and responsibilities. 1 After hearing evidence from all the parties involved, the court finds that the plaintiff has not presented any evidence that the first defendant has approved the fourth defendant's ability to handle and care for the deceased. There is no written or oral agreement between the first defendant and the fourth defendant regarding the first defendant's training of the fourth defendant's nurses. 1 As regards the second and third defendants, the court finds that the doctors cannot be held responsible for this death. The deceased's condition had improved between the time of his admission and his discharge, indicating that the second and third defendants were not negligent at that particular material time. Also, based on the plaintiff's expert witness, the deceased died from a chronic lung condition manifested in recurring pneumothoraxes. There seems to be no connection between this and the allegation of failure to inform about the possibility of tracheostomy blockage. 1 Meanwhile, the court finds that the fourth defendant had adequately discharged its duties under the care plan provided to the deceased. The fourth defendant cannot be held to the same standards as licensed healthcare practitioners in terms of medical negligence. In terms of contractual obligations, the fourth defendant performed its work in accordance with what it was hired to do. By imposing liability, it amounts to adding extra and additional duties that they aren't even supposed to provide. 1 In light of all the above findings, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed while the first defendant's counterclaim for medical bill is allowed. 1 The Plaintiff sought to recuse the judge based on her familial relationship to the former Attorney General appointed by the Defendant in 2016, and alleged judicial coercion through a deadline to file a Notice of Discontinuance or face dismissal. The application was filed nearly twelve months after learning of the judge's background and one week before the imposed deadline. Applying the "real danger of bias" test from R v Gough, the court found no evidence of actual bias or circumstances creating real danger thereof. The remote familial connection (seven years past) and routine case management directions were insufficient for recusal. The strategic timing suggested tactical judge-shopping rather than genuine bias concerns. 1 Recusal - bias test – case management – settlement 1 Malice - Damages and Other Reliefs - General Damages - Aggravated Damages - Exemplary Damages - Injunction - Public Retraction and Apology 1 By way of Enclosure 8, the defendant is seeking leave from this court to file a Reply to Defence to Counterclaim. The purpose of this is to reply to the plaintiffs' Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. Before going into the merits of the application, the parties have agreed for the Court to decide on a preliminary issue raised by the defendant by way of a preliminary objection. On this, the plaintiffs argue that the affidavit in support of Enclosure 8 and its affidavit in reply were both affirmed by the learned solicitor for the defendant. There was no affidavit filed by the defendant. 1 To this end, the Court finds that upon perusing both affidavits, which were drafted pursuant to the facts contained in the draft Reply to Defence to Counterclaim, the affidavits could not have been drafted without the facts that were available personally and in the knowledge of the defendant. Therefore, the Court finds that there are no valid affidavits filed in support of Enclosure 8. 1 [1] This is the Defendant’s application to commence committal proceedings against the Plaintiff’s representative (Enclosure 75) under Order 52 Rule 3 (2) of Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). 1 [2] The Plaintiff operates a business in manufacturing, distributing, and selling motorcycles and motorcycle spare parts under various brands, including “SYM.” The Defendant is an individual and Malaysian citizen who has address of service at 23 Jalan Ara SD 7/4F Bandar Sri Damansara, 52200 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. 1 [3] Earlier in 2024, the Plaintiff launched a new SYM motorcycle named “Husky-150” which has quickly become highly sought after by bikers and riders in Malaysia, resulting in a waiting list. 1 [3} This Court is satisfied that the Defendant has failed to show a prima facie contempt of court on the part of the alleged contemnor. Based on the above deliberations, this Court dismissed Enclosure 75 with costs. 1 Permohonan injunksi interim oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan. Kes ini melibatkan tuntutan fitnah oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan - permohonan Plaintif adalah dibenarkan. 1 1. The Court in this case struck out the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for defamation, under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ((“the Rules”), as it disclosed no cause of action. 1 17. The case law is clear that the summary procedure in Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules to strike out a claim can be applied in plain and obvious case. In the Court’s view this is one such plain and obvious case. 1 18. Further Order 34(1) of the Rules authorises the Court on its own motion to give such orders and directions: 1 19. Orders and directions for just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (O. 34 r. 1) 1 all matters which must or can be dealt with on interlocutory applications and have not already been dealt with may so far as possible be dealt with; and 1 20. In the upshot the Court struck out the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants. 1 This Court’s Orders [74] For the reasons set out herein, judgment is entered in favour of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Plaintiffs against the Defendant. This Court makes the following orders: (a) General Damages The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs general damages as follows: (a) To the 1st Plaintiff: RM50,000 (b) To the 2nd Plaintiff: RM50,000 (c) To the 3rd Plaintiff: RM50,000 (d) To the 4th Plaintiff: RM50,000 The quantum is assessed having regard to the factors set out by the Federal Court in Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan bin Kassim (and Another Appeal) [2021] 4 CLJ 155; [2021] 2 MLJ 514; [2021] 3 MLRA 207 and the recent judicial trend in cases involving businesses and professionals as seen in Ifcon Technology Sdn Bhd & Ors v Luqmanul Hakim Abd Rahim [2022] 1 LNS 1533, Jason Jonathan Lo v Star Media Group Bhd & Ors [2024] CLJU 470, Chua Chin Soon v Wong Yew Choong [2025] CLJU 101, and Lim Bee Chian v Hendrick Chia Miah Yang [2025] CLJU 965. The quantum is assessed having regard to the factors set out in Lim Guan Eng (supra), particularly: (i) The conduct of the Plaintiffs, who have maintained their professional standing and reputation; (ii) The Plaintiffs' position and standing in society as leaders in the cybersecurity industry in Malaysia; (iii) The nature of the libel, which contained multiple serious allegations across a lengthy and detailed article; (iv) The mode and extent of publication, which included Medium, WayBack Machine website archiving, and viral dissemination through the Low Yatt Forum; (v) The absence of an apology or retraction by the Defendant prior to this judgment; and (vi) The whole conduct of the Defendant from the time of publication to the conclusion of trial. 1 This Court is of the considered view that while the defamation is serious and proven, the paramount importance in this case lies not in substantial monetary compensation but in the permanent removal of the defamatory publication and the issuance of a public apology to restore the Plaintiffs' reputations. These moderate awards serve the compensatory function while recognizing that the Defendant's conduct, though improper, was not at the extreme end of malicious defamation warranting the highest awards. The awards are nevertheless substantial enough to vindicate the Plaintiffs' rights and signal that defamatory publications have consequences. 1 (b) Aggravated and Exemplary Damages No award of aggravated damages or exemplary damages is made. While the Defendant's conduct in publishing the Impugned Article was improper and legally indefensible, he had made it clear in the Exit Interview on the reasons of his resignation. Yet, the Plaintiff had failed to address the issues personally and privately. The circumstances including the personal position of the parties do not warrant damages of a punitive in terms of aggravated damages or exemplary nature. 1 (c) Perpetual Injunction A perpetual injunction is granted restraining the Defendant, whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise howsoever, from publishing, causing to be published, or authorizing the publication of: (i) The Impugned Article or any part thereof; (ii) Any similar defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiffs or any of them; and (iii) Any statements with the same or similar defamatory meaning as those contained in the Impugned Article. 1 (d) Removal Order The Defendant shall, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this judgment: (a) Take all necessary steps to procure the permanent removal of the Impugned Article from WayBack Machine website or any other internet archive or platform where it may be accessible; 1 (b) Take all necessary steps to procure the permanent removal of any links to the Impugned Article from any forum, website or platform including but not limited to 1 [1] Ini merupakan permohonan Defendan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(c), Aturan 34 dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KM 2012) untuk suatu perintah bahawa keseluruhan tindakan Plaintif ditolak atau dibatalkan (Lampiran 51). Defendan membuat permohonan ini berasaskan “Unless Order” yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah ini pada 13.12.2024 1 [2] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa alasan yang diberikan Plaintif bukanlah alasan atau justifikasi yang kukuh berkenaan ketidakpatuhannya. Oleh itu, kegagalan mematuhi arahan Mahkamah adalah satu penyalahan proses Mahkamah dan tidak sepatutnya dibenarkan berlaku. 1 [3] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dikemukakan, Lampiran 51 adalah dibenarkan dengan kos. 1 1. The Court struck out the Plaintiff’s claim for defamation against the Defendants under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules for the absence of any cause of action. 1 16. The case law is clear that the summary procedure in Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules to strike out a claim can be applied in plain and obvious case. In the Court’s view this is one such plain and obvious case. 1 17. Further Order 34(1) of the Rules authorises the Court on its own motion to give such orders and directions: 1 1. Orders and directions for just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (O. 34 r. 1) 1 (a) all matters which must or can be dealt with on interlocutory applications and have not already been dealt with may so far as possible be dealt with; and 1 18. In the upshot the Court struck out the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants. 1 Mental health – in civil proceedings the Court has no power to invoke the provisions of section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code to have the defendant detained for psychiatric observation Mental health – in civil proceedings, without an application by a relative of the person suspected to be mentally disordered and supported by the recommendation of a medical officer as is required under the Mental Health Act 2001, the Court has no power to order the person suspected to be mentally disordered to be admitted into a psychiatric hospital for psychiatric evaluation Inherent powers – Under its inherent powers, the Court has the power to order that a party be medically examined by a psychiatrist as to his mental state of health and for the psychiatrist to render his assessment and report directly to the Court and failing co-operation by the party so ordered, the Court may make its own assessment. 1 Melalui satu Notis Permohonan sepertimana di Lampiran 18, plaintif telah memohon untuk membatalkan sebahagian pernyataan-pernyataan di dalam Pembelaan defendan bertarikh 29 November 2024 (“pernyataan-pernyataan Pembelaan defendan tersebut”) di bawah Aturan 18 kaedah 19 (b) dan/atau Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012). 1 Plaintif mendakwa bahawa pernyataan-pernyataan Pembelaan defendan tersebut adalah mengaibkan dan tidak relevan memandangkan kausa tindakan dalam guaman ini adalah berbangkit daripada isu fitnah. Malahan, hujah plaintif lagi, pernyataan-pernyataan Pembelaan defendan tersebut sama sekali tidak berkaitan dengan mana-mana relif yang dipohon oleh plaintif di dalam tindakan ini. 1 Setelah meneliti hujahan pihak-pihak, Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 18 telah ditolak oleh Mahkamah dengan kos. 1 Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa permohonan ini bukanlah merupakan suatu permohonan yang jelas dan nyata untuk Mahkamah membatalkan pernyataan-pernyataan Pembelaan defendan tersebut. 1 Tindakan ini melibatkan tuntutan fitnah oleh plaintif terhadap defendan berhubung dua video TikTok yang memfitnah reputasi plaintif sebagai jurulatih pemasaran. Mahkamah mendapati video bertarikh 21.07.2022 dan 10.08.2022 jelas merujuk kepada plaintif, bersifat fitnah dan diterbitkan dengan niat jahat. Defendan gagal membuktikan sebarang pembelaan yang sah. Tuntutan balas defendan ditolak kerana kenyataan plaintif tidak merujuk khusus kepada defendan. Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan plaintif dan memberi award ganti rugi keseluruhan sebanyak RM300,000.00 berserta faedah dan kos. 1 Interlocutory injunction issued against blogger cum cybertrooper – Breach of injunction by posting defamatory statements on social media accounts – Defendant tendered apology in Court and gave undertaking to post apology on the same social media accounts as the impugned statements – Scrolling of apology at high speed to make it unreadable – Addition of background music from a comedy – Act of mockery by the Defendant – Failure to post Apology on all the same social media accounts – Failure to comply with court order is plain contempt of court – On the next day the Defendant created live stream video of himself uttering statements that showed no remorse – Effect of new video was to repudiate the apology recorded in Court – Defendant guilty of contempt of court for his contemptuous video – Sentencing for contempt of court – No remorse shown – Defendant well aware of consequences of contempt of court – Imprisonment appropriate sentence instead of a fine 1 Permohonan injuksi interim secara ex-parte ke atas Defendan Pertama, Kedua, Ketiga, Keempat, Kelima, Keenam, Ketujuh, Kelapan, Kesembilan dan Kesepuluh bagi tuntutan fitnah - permohonan ditolak. 1 Conclusion [209] Based on the extensive consideration of all the evidence, case laws, and submissions of all the learned counsels of the parties, this Court finds that, read as a whole by the ordinary reasonable reader, Impugned Words 1 and 2 do convey the lesser defamatory meaning identified - namely, that the Plaintiff is a morally compromised figure linked to a serious scandal and is unfit for public office. 1 [300] However, liability does not follow because the defence of justification is made out as to that lesser sting; fair comment protects the opinions expressed on matters of public interest; and, in relation to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, reportage applies. Malice is not proven, and the delay raises additional process concerns. 1 [301] Accordingly, while Impugned Words 1 and Impugned Words 2 are defamatory in fact (in the lesser sense), the applicable defences succeed. Consequently, the Plaintiff has failed to prove its case on a balance of probabilities against all the Defendants. The Plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed. 1 [302] The 1st Defendant and DAP (4th, 5th and 6th Defendants) are awarded costs of RM75,000.00. The 2nd and 3rd Defendant are also entitled to costs of RM75,000. All costs are subject to allocator. 1 Amendment of pleadings Defamation Translation requirements Post-trial amendment Prejudice Bona fide application Tactical manoeuvre Clerical corrections Overriding interest of justice Abuse of process 1 Defamation – an offending article presented as a joint paper will amount to a publication of the defamatory comments by the party who allow itself to be held out as the joint presenter of the offending article if it has not taken any steps to dissociate itself from the said publication Defamation – a society which is a non-political party may be sued for defamation 1 This case concerns a defamation action by a former husband against his former wife over statements in a police report lodged during a custody dispute. The Defendant's report alleged the Plaintiff had taken their two children and consumed prohibited substances. The High Court dismissed the claim since the Plaintiff failed to prove publication to any third party; the statements, read in context, were not capable of bearing defamatory meaning as they constituted a mother's plea for police assistance; and the defence of absolute privilege applied to police reports lodged under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, following Lee Yoke Yam v Chin Keat Seng [2012] 9 CLJ 833. The defences of justification and fair comment also succeeded. 1 Defamation; police report; absolute privilege; publication; section 107 Criminal Procedure Code; justification; fair comment; Defamation Act 1957 1 Interlocutory Injunction Mental Health Act 2001 Anti-suit Injunction Abuse of Process Quia Timet Injunction Specific Relief Act 1950, Section 54 Presumption of Mental Capacity Balance of Convenience Ad Interim Order Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings Rule Against Multiplicity of Proceedings 1 By way of Enclosure 6, the defendants sought an application under Order 18 rule 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for an Order to strike out the plaintiff's action. The Court allowed striking out the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that, firstly, the Statement of Claim is defective because it lacks a certified Bahasa Melayu translation of the alleged defamatory statements, and secondly, the impugned letter issued by the defendants in their capacity as solicitors is protected by absolute privilege. 1 Defamation Protective Order In Camera Proceedings Matrimonial Privacy Court's Inherent Jurisdiction Media Publication Restrictions Sealing Order Fair Trial Rights Confidentiality of Court Documents Judicial Discretion 1 The Court varied a Mareva injunction from RM50,000 to RM1,100,000 monthly for a petroleum wholesale business, allowing RM300,000 for supplier payments, RM5,000 for salaries, RM500 for secretarial fees, and RM53,423 as a one-time payment. Applying the Angel Bell principle, the court held that business expenses should be permitted even when illegality is alleged but unresolved, as long as payments represent ordinary dealings made in good faith. The decision balanced asset preservation with the defendant's right to carry on business, emphasising that Mareva injunctions should not force the closure of businesses before trial. Strict safeguards, including mandatory reporting, payment limits, and ongoing supervision, prevent improper dissipation while allowing businesses to continue. 1 Mareva injunction; variation; business expenses; Angel Bell; asset preservation; disputed illegality; interlocutory relief 1 This medical negligence case arises from the birth of AF on 27 June 2015, who developed cerebral palsy following delivery at Putra Medical Centre. The Plaintiffs alleged breaches of duty including administering Pitocin without consent or indication, failing to conduct continuous CTG monitoring (with critical records missing), and proceeding with vacuum extraction without justification. The Court found the Second Defendant (Consultant Obstetrician) 80% liable for direct clinical negligence and the First Defendant (hospital) 20% liable for institutional failures. MRI evidence confirmed perinatal hypoxic-ischaemic injury, establishing causation. On quantum, RM350,000 was awarded for general damages with a 43-year multiplier applied for future damages. Aggravated damages were dismissed for failure to plead and insufficient evidence of deliberate concealment. 1 Medical negligence; informed consent; CTG monitoring; Bolam-Bolitho test; vicarious liability 1 The liquidator filed this suit on behalf of the plaintiff to set aside the SPA of 14 units condominium units sold by the plaintiff as a set off for financial aid from a JVA, PA, BIA and TCA for the condominium units [2] A declaration to void 4 other SPA involving the D7. [3] On 28.02.2025, after a full trial I find the plaintiff has failed to prove its case and I dismissed it accordingly. The Counterclaim of D3, D4 and D5 and D7 are allowed with costs against the plaintiff. 1 This is a claim arising from two major high rise construction projects carried out in close proximity to the Plaintiff's long - established restaurant premises known as Sassarosso. 1 Permohonan untuk pembatalan pliding di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Tuntutan Plaintif adalah penahanan tidak sah ekoran laporan polis oleh Defendan. Mahkamah mendapati tiada kausa tindakan - permohonan dibenarkan. 1 Civil Procedure – Counterclaim – Breach of contract – Exclusive distributorship – Whether Letter of Appointment prohibited delegation to third parties – Interpretation of written contract – Parol evidence rule – Sections 91 & 92 Evidence Act 1950 – Whether termination was lawful – Whether failure to protest termination amounts to waiver – Whether damages for loss of tender, inventory, and reputation recoverable – Burden of proof – Sections 101 & 102 Evidence Act 1950 – Damages under section 74 Contracts Act 1950 – Principles of Hadley v Baxendale – Mitigation of loss – Whether reputational loss claim sustainable in contract – Malik v Bank of Credit applied – Claim dismissed. 1 Plaintiff’s application for leave to add a new defendant and amend Amended Statement of Claim – Delay in filing application – Trial scheduled to commence in 3 months – Trial dates fixed a year earlier –Yamaha Motor Ltd based on old Rules of the High Court 1980 - Mandatory for reasons for delay to be given – Federal Court in Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe [2016] 1 MLJ 301 introduced new approach based on Rules of Court 2012 – Nothing in Plaintiff’s affidavit to explain delay – Court may dismiss the Plaintiff’s application in limine to avoid postponing trial – Plaintiff may file fresh suit against intended new defendant or discontinue with liberty to file afresh – No prejudice to the Plaintiff’s rights 1 This Court notes the commendable and considerate position taken by the Defendants in electing not to pursue costs, despite the considerable time and resources expended in the defence of this action. In recognition of this conciliatory stance, and in the interest of closure, although the offer of not seeking costs is not conditional, this Court makes no order as to costs. This Court makes no other order. 1 The advocate and solicitor Plaintiff sued seven defendants for harassment and intimidation based on a single professional letter seeking clarification about court statements. Upon applications to strike out by the defendants, his claim was struck out the claims under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC 2012, finding no reasonable cause of action. Harassment claim failed as tort requires "persistent and deliberate course of conduct" (Mohd Ridzwan) - one letter cannot constitute the necessary repetitive behaviour. Intimidation claim failed as no unlawful threat existed; the letter contained a lawful warning, and the plaintiff continued practising after receipt, negating the submission element. The court held that weaponising routine professional correspondence into litigation constituted abuse of process, emphasising that lawyers must seek clarification without fear of harassment claims. 1 Harassment – intimidation - striking out - professional correspondence - abuse of process - course of conduct 1 Conclusions [101] This Court makes the following findings of fact: (a) The Plaintiff and Defendant are estranged spouses in contested divorce proceedings, with a history of significant personal and professional conflict. 1 (b) PTBC was jointly owned and managed by them, with a clear division of responsibilities: the Defendant handled teaching and operations, while the Plaintiff handled all financial, accounting, and corporate governance matters. 1 (c) The Defendant relied entirely on the Plaintiff's expertise and representations regarding PTBC's financial affairs and signed documents in good faith. 1 (d) Following the breakdown of their relationship in March 2021, the Plaintiff issued multiple legal demands against the Defendant and commenced various legal proceedings. 1 (e) When the Defendant received the legal demand for RM277,921.06, she was genuinely concerned and confused, particularly given the varying amounts claimed and the lack of clear documentation in the audited accounts that she reviewed. 1 (f) She repeatedly requested supporting documents and proof of debt but did not receive responses she found satisfactory. 1 (g) She lodged complaints with MIA and CCM in good faith, based on her honest belief that there were irregularities warranting investigation. 1 (h) Both complaints were investigated and dismissed by the respective regulatory authorities. 1 (i) The Plaintiff has initiated multiple legal proceedings against the Defendant, including this defamation suit, during the period of their contested divorce. 1 (j) The complaints were confidential communications to regulatory bodies and were not publicized. 1 [1] In this civil action, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief against the defendant for allegedly defaming her. The plaintiff claims that the defendant made four defamatory statements in four separate emails ("impugned emails"), which were specifically directed at her and published to a select group of people. The allegations involved the plaintiff's conduct in managing the affairs of an Engineering Consultancy Practice. 1 The defendant, however, claims that these emails aren't defamatory. In all she did, she was safeguarding the interests of the company. However, even if they can be construed as defamatory, which the defendant denies, she can still claim justification and qualified privilege. 1 Taking into account the findings during the trial, the court concludes that the impugned emails are defamatory, as alleged by the plaintiff. The court also finds that the defendant is not entitled to rely on the defences of justification and qualified privilege because she has no legal interest in the affairs of the company. 1 The plaintiff claims are allowed with costs. 1 1. In this Originating Summons (OS), the applicant seeks to be granted an abridgement/extension of time (EOT) to file a Judicial Review application against the Industrial Court's decision in Awad No. 2087 of 2024, dated 11.10.2023, under O.3 r.5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012), including costs and other reliefs. 2. On 03.04.2025, after considering all the cause papers and the respective written submissions of the parties, I hold that this OS has no merit, and it is dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid within 30 days from the date of this Order. 1 Constitutional Law: Citizenship – By operation of law – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(a) of Part II and section 19B of part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Burden of proof – whether evidence supports fact of ‘a newly born found exposed’ to invoke presumption under section 19B-Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(e) read with section 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Burden of proof – whether requirement of jus sanguinis satisfied if identity of biological parents unknown 1 Constitutional Law: Citizenship – By operation of law – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(a) of Part II and section 17 of part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Plaintiffs born to Malaysian father and Indonesian mother-parents were not in a legal relationship at time of birth-marriage was registered after birth – whether one of the parents in section 1(a) can include biological father-whether Federal Court case of CCH has overruled the majority decision of CTEB-whether requirement of jus sanguinis satisfied by the fact of the Plaintiffs’ biological father being a Malaysian citizen 1 Constitutional Law: Citizenship – By operation of law – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(a) of Part II and section 19B of part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Burden of proof – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(e) read with section 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Burden of proof – Adoption Act 1952 – Whether adoption confers citizenship. 1 REVENUE LAW: Customs – Proper classification of tariff code – Chapter 76 of the Customs Duty Order 2017 (P.U.(A) 5) – Charges levied based on tariff code – Appeal against tariff code to Customs Appeal Tribunal (CAT) – CAT allow appeal – Appeal to High Court against CAT’s decision allowing appeal - Whether CAT decision according to law. 1 Constitutional Law: Citizenship – By operation of law – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(a) of Part II and section 19B of part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Burden of proof – mother delivered in Taj Hospital-brought home by 1st Plaintiff and her husband- the identity of biological mother unknown-birth certificate issued stating them as parents- -whether on the facts the presumption can be invoked -whether expansive meaning to be given to baby found exposed and fact of abandonment 1 The plaintiff seeks to be granted an abridgement of time to file and submit a Notice of Appeal against the Industrial Court Awad No. 495 of 2024 dated 03.04.2024 allegedly received by the plaintiff on 30.04.2024 in the Industrial Court Case No.: 11/4-613/22 within 7 days from the date the Court's order. I find the plaintiff has failed to prove it’s case and I dismissed the plaintiff’s application with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid within 30 days from the date of this Order. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out – Order 18 rule 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Accused convicted and sentenced by Sessions Court – Appeal was pending – Accused filed an originating summons to declare unconstitutional section 188(2)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act – Inconsistent with Articles 5(1), 8(1) and (2), 10(1)(a) and Article 13 of the Federal Constitution – Whether originating summons an abuse of the process of the court 1 Constitutional Law: Citizenship – by operation of law – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Burden of proof – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Burden of proof – Whether adoption by citizens can confer citizenship – Adoption Act 1952 1 REVENUE LAW: Stamp duty – Novation agreement to subsidiary – Whether agreement for conveyance – Assessment – Collector of Stamp Duty imposed ad valorem stamp duty – Appeal – Stamp Act 1946, ss 4 and 16(1) – Items 4 and 32(a) of the First Schedule of the Stamp Duty Act 1946. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 – Registration of foreign judgment order – Application to extend time – Extension sought to set aside the registration of foreign judgment order – Whether compliance with Order 67 Rules of Court 2012 1 Whether the Plaintiff’s claim discloses no reasonable cause of action - Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and/ or is an abuse of the process of the Court 1 Enclosure 1. CONSTRUCTION LAW – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – Adjudication decision – Application to set aside – Section 15(b) & (d) CIPAA –Excess of jurisdiction – Alleged non-compliance with s.5(2)(a) (due date for payment) –Whether incorrect or miscalculated due date renders payment claim invalid – Whether failure to raise jurisdictional objection during adjudication precludes reliance at setting-aside stage –Distinction between absence of due date and minor miscalculation – “Pay now, argue later” principle – Technical objections – Whether adjudication decision a nullity – 1 Section 5(2)(b) CIPAA – Requirement to identify cause of action – Whether express pleading of “breach of contract” required –Substance over form – Holistic reading of payment claim –Jurisdiction vs merits – Federal Court guidance in Anas Construction – Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction – 1 Section 28 CIPAA – Enforcement of adjudication decision as judgment of court –Conditions for enforcement – Discretion of court – Enforcement allowed with costs 1 This Originating Summons concerns whether Edra’s call on Hyundai Engineering’s security bonds was unconscionable under sections 41–53 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 and clause 5.6 of the EPC Contract. The High Court held that Edra’s call on the Final Completion Bonds was invalid for failing to comply with the contractual prerequisite in clause 5.6(1)(e), but the call on the Warranty Bond was valid as no such notice was required. The key legal issue was whether the calls breached contractual conditions and met the threshold of unconscionability. 1 These two Originating Summons are connected by an Adjudication Decision dated 18.5.2025 that North Soil Eng (M) Sdn Bhd obtained against Emrail Sdn Bhd under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012. Emrail is applying to set aside the Adjudication Decision while North Soil is applying under section 28 of the Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision against Emrail as if it is a judgment or order of the High Court. 1 CONSTRUCTION LAW — Adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) — Setting aside of adjudication decision-- Whether the Adjudicator's failure to disclose his involvement in an ongoing Civil Suit constitutes a jurisdictional defect under Section 15(d) CIPAA-- Whether the non-disclosure or refusal to recuse himself gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias under Sections 15(b) and 15(c) of CIPAA--Whether the Adjudicator owes a duty to disclose-- Whether there was any denial of natural justice in the Adjudication Proceedings ---Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from challenging the decision due to its election to continue with the Adjudication despite of initial objections to the Adjudicator's alleged impartiality. 1 This case concerns an application under section 30 of CIPAA 2012 for direct payment by a principal to a subcontractor following an unpaid adjudication decision. The key issue was whether, at the time of the direct payment request, monies were “due or payable” by the principal to the main contractor under section 30(5) CIPAA, notwithstanding the principal’s alleged LAD claim. The Court held that the Direct Payment Notice was valid and allowed the Originating Summons with costs. 1 Enclosure 1. CONSTRUCTION LAW: Whether a sworn averment of non-payment is sufficient proof of a prior demand to the main contractor is required before invoking Section 30 CIPAA-- Whether the issuance of a notice under Section 30(2) CIPAA and the absence of proof of payment establishes non-payment-- Whether retention sums constitute monies “due or payable” notwithstanding that release is subject to the defects liability period or the certificate of making good defects--Whether the status of the main contract as ongoing or terminated affects the characterisation of retention sums under Section 30(5) CIPAA--Whether the principal’s issuance of a Section 30(2) notice precludes it from asserting that no monies are due or payable--Whether production of payment certificates and ledgers without proof of actual remittance discharges the principal’s evidential burden. 1 Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-132-08/2024 (OS 132) is Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn Bhd (“SUJV”) application to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 9.8.2024 (“AD”) given in favour of Eversendai Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd (“ECSB”) pursuant to sections 15(a), (b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) 1 Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-133-08/2024 (OS 133) is SUJV’s application to stay inter alia the OS 133 proceedings including any winding up proceedings and payments under section 30 CIPAA pursuant to section 16 (1)(b) of CIPAA until final disposition of the matter in an Arbitration. 1 Enclosure 1 & 11. In Originating Summons No. WA-24C-139-09/2024 (OS 139), Damai City Sdn Bhd (“DCSB”) had applied under enclosure 1 (Enclosure 1) to this Court to inter alia under Order 69A rules 2, 3 and 7 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the rules of Court 2012 and/or section 15(b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012. There is also in OS 139 an application under enclosure 11 for a stay of the AD pursuant to section 16 (1)(b) CIPAA (Enclosure 11) pending the disposal of the stay application or the disposal of the Arbitration Proceedings under in Enclosure 1. (“CIPAA”) 1 Enclosure 1. In Originating Summons No. WA-24C-139-09/2024 (OS 139), Damai City Sdn Bhd (“DCSB”) had applied under enclosure 1 (Enclosure 1) to this Court to inter alia under Order 69A rules 2, 3 and 7 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the rules of Court 2012 and/or section 15(b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012. There is also in OS 139 an application under enclosure 11 for a stay of the AD pursuant to section 16 (1)(b) CIPAA (Enclosure 11) pending the disposal of the stay application or the disposal of the Arbitration Proceedings under in Enclosure 1(“CIPAA”). 1 Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-144-09/2024 (OS 144) is Mercu Harapan Sdn Bhd (“Mercu”) application to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 18.76.2023 (“AD”) given in their favour pursuant to section 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) whilst Originating Summons No. WA-24C-19211/2024 (OS 192) is Maju Health Care Sdn Bhd set aside the said AD in accordance with section 15(b), (c) and (d) of CIPAA. 1 Enclosure 1. OS 150 on the other hand is ECSB’s application before this Court to enforce the AD pursuant to section 28 CIPAA. 1 Hallmark is applying under section 28 of the Act to enforce the Adjudication Decision against MN Permai. High Court allowed the Plaintiff's Originating Summons dated 8/10/2024 with costs. 1 Enclosure 1. CONSTRUCTION LAW – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – Adjudication decision – Application to set aside – Section 15(b) CIPAA – Alleged denial of natural justice – Scope of court’s supervisory jurisdiction – Distinction between procedural fairness and merits review – Failure to consider submissions – Presumption that adjudicator considered all materials – Materiality of alleged breach – Whether adjudicator required to address every argument or evidence – Whether alleged errors of fact, law or contractual interpretation are grounds for setting aside – 1 Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-159-10/2024 (OS 159) is Fortune Façade Treatment Sdn Bhd (“FFT”) application to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 19.8.2024 (“AD”) pursuant to section 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) 1 Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-176-11/2024 (OS 176) is Global Built Sdn Bhd (“GBSB”) supplication to set aside the AD in accordance with section 15 (b) CIPAA. 1 Enclosure 1. There is also Originating Summons No. WA-24C-181-11/2024 (OS 181) which is Pung Tiong Gee and Pung Tiong Cheng (“PT”) application to enforce the AD under section 28 CIPAA. 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE Principles for granting an Erinford injunction pending appeal- Whether commencement or continuation of winding-up proceedings renders an appeal nugatory - Whether damages constitute an adequate remedy pending appeal- Whether the court should preserve the status quo after judgment pending appeal- Whether the balance of convenience favours restraining enforcement of a judgment debt-Whether the merits of an appeal are relevant in an application for an Erinford injunction- Whether prayers sought have become academic or incapable of performance 1 Enclosure 1. In the Originating Summons (“OS”) before this Court, the Plaintiff has applied for the following orders pursuant to section 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court: a declaration that the Performance Bond Sum of RM5,346,550.00 (“Performance Bond Sum”) which has been deposited by the Plaintiff with the Defendant is trust property, a declaration that the Defendant is responsible as a constructive trustee for the said Performance Bond Sum, an order that the Defendant or liquidator return the Performance Bond Sum together with interests of RM1,865,433.30 calculated form the Adjudication Award till the date of the claim in 10 days from the date of this Order, costs in the Companies Winding Up Application No. WA-228PW-619-12/2022, costs for the appeal in Appeal no. W-02(a)-1942-11/2023 and costs 1 Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-144-09/2024 (OS 144) is Mercu Harapan Sdn Bhd (“Mercu”) application to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 18.76.2023 (“AD”) given in their favour pursuant to section 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) whilst Originating Summons No. WA-24C-19211/2024 (OS 192) is Maju Health Care Sdn Bhd (“MH”) application to set aside the said AD in accordance with section 15(b), (c) and (d) of CIPAA. 1 Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-210-12/2024 (OS 210) is Wong Yen Fen t/a LKL Ceiling Enterprise (“LKL”) application pursuant to section 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) to enforce the Adjudication Decision dated 7.10.2024 (“AD”) 1 Enclosure 1. Simultaneously with OS 3, this Court had heard Originating Summons No. WA-24C-214-12/2024 (OS 214) which was Bond’s application under section 28 CIPAA to enforce the AD. 1 Enclosure 1. In Originating Summons No. WA-24C-24-01/2025 (OS 24), Perbadanan Putrajaya (“PP”) had applied to this court under section 15 (b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 10.1.2025 (“AD”) given in favour of Damasara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd (“DRSB”). We also have Originating Summons No. WA-24C-25-01/2025 (OS 25) where PP has applied to stay the AD pursuant to section 16 CIPAA. Finally, there is Originating Summons No. WA-24C-37-02/2025 (OS 37) in which DRSB has applied to enforce the said Ad in accordance with section 28 CIPAA. [4] All the above 3 Originating Summons were heard together before this Court. 1 Enclosure 1. In Originating Summons No. WA-24C-24-01/2025 (OS 24), Perbadanan Putrajaya (“PP”) had applied to this court under section 15 (b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 10.1.2025 (“AD”) given in favour of Damasara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd (“DRSB”). We also have Originating Summons No. WA-24C-25-01/2025 (OS 25) where PP has applied to stay the AD pursuant to section 16 CIPAA. Finally, there is Originating Summons No. WA-24C-37-02/2025 (OS 37) in which DRSB has applied to enforce the said Ad in accordance with section 28 CIPAA. All the above 3 Originating Summons were heard together before this Court. 1 Enclosure 1. There is firstly an application under enclosure 1 (Enclosure 1) in Originating Summons No. WA-24C-3-01/2025 (OS 3) by, Game On Funpark (Southern) Sdn Bhd (“GOF”) for inter alia i. a stay under section 16 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) (Stay Application) of the Adjudication Decision dated 28.11.2024 (“AD”) given in favour of Bond M&E Sdn Bhd (“Bond”) pending the disposal of the setting aside of the said AD in this matter (Stay Application); ii. the AD be set aside as the Learned Adjudicator (“Adjudicator”) on the grounds that there has been a breach of natural justice occasioned by the Adjudicator pursuant to section 15 CIPAA (Setting Aside Application). 1 Enclosusre 1. In Originating Summons No. WA-24C-24-01/2025 (OS 24), Perbadanan Putrajaya (“PP”) had applied to this court under section 15 (b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 10.1.2025 (“AD”) given in favour of Damasara Realty (Johor) Sdn Bhd (“DRSB”). We also have Originating Summons No. WA-24C-25-01/2025 (OS 25) where PP has applied to stay the AD pursuant to section 16 CIPAA. Finally, there is Originating Summons No. WA-24C-37-02/2025 (OS 37) in which DRSB has applied to enforce the said Ad in accordance with section 28 CIPAA. All the above 3 Originating Summons were heard together before this Court. 1 Application under sections 15(b) and 15(d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 to set aside an Adjudication Decision dated 10.2.2025 that Berkat Honeywell Sdn Bhd obtained against it. 1 Enclosure 1. CONSTRUCTION LAW – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – Adjudication decision – Application to set aside – Section 15(b) & (d) CIPAA – Excess of jurisdiction – Alleged non-compliance with s.5(2)(a) (due date for payment) –Whether incorrect or miscalculated due date renders payment claim invalid –Whether failure to raise jurisdictional objection during adjudication precludes reliance at setting-aside stage –Distinction between absence of due date and minor miscalculation – “Pay now, argue later” principle – Technical objections – Whether adjudication decision a nullity – 1 Section 5(2)(b) CIPAA – Requirement to identify cause of action – Whether express pleading of “breach of contract” required – Substance over form – Holistic reading of payment claim – Jurisdiction vs merits – Federal Court guidance in Anas Construction –Whether the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction – 1 Section 28 CIPAA – Enforcement of adjudication decision as judgment of court – Conditions for enforcement – Discretion of court – Enforcement allowed with costs 1 Application by the Defendant to summarily dispose of Plaintiff's action after the close of the pleadings by certain question of law. The Plaintiff opposes that application, primarily contending that there are various disputed facts which consequently means that the claims between them can only be determined after a full trial. 1 CONSTRUCTION LAW – Arbitration – Setting aside of arbitral award – Application under sections 37(1)(a)(iv), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Breach of natural justice – Whether arbitrator failed to consider Interpretation Argument premised on textual comparison of Bills of Quantities between two contract packages – Whether Award reasoning disclosed a break in the chain of reasoning – Whether arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by making findings on waiver and acquiescence not pleaded by parties – Whether observations on absence of contemporaneous complaints constituted legal findings of waiver or mere factual inferences drawn from the matrix to resolve pleaded contractual interpretation issue – Whether complaints in truth amounted to challenge on merits, weighing of evidence and findings of fact – Whether expert witness evidence on industry meaning of "erection" in construction contracts to be preferred over textual analysis – Minimal curial intervention – Finality of arbitral award. 1 Contract Law — Performance Bond — Arbitration Act 2005, section 11- Whether the Employer calling on the Performance Bond is unconscionable conduct- Whether strong prima facie evidence of unconscionability was established— Whether contractual disputes equate to unconscionability — Whether Applicants able to show a seriously arguable case 1 Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C(ARB)-34-05/2024 (OS 34) is MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd (“MRCB”) an application to set aside the Award dated 18.4.20204 (“Award”) made in favour of Brilliant Star Construction Sdn Bhd (“BSC”) pursuant to inter alia section 37(1)(a)(iv)(v), (b)(ii), section 37(2)(b)(i) and/or 37(2)(b(ii), and section 37(6) of the Arbitration Act 2005. 1 Enclosure 1. In Originating Summons No. WA-24C(ARB)-37-06/2024 (OS 37) Sungai Lui Construction Sdn Bhd (“SLC”) had applied to enforce the Award dated 31.5.2024 (“Award”) in its favour pursuant to inter alia section 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005. 1 Enclosure 1 & 31. There is before this Court 2 enclosures which were heard together being enclosure 1 (Enclosure 1) which is the Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte application pursuant to amongst others section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 to injunct the Defendant or its servants or agents from making a demand under the Performance Bond No. 99140BGJ6951453 dated 26.8.2014 (“PB”) and enclosure 31 (Enclosure 31) which is inter alia the Defendant’s application to set aside under Order 29 rule 1 and Order 32 rule 6 and/or Order 42 rule 13 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 the Ex-Parte Order dated 10.6.2024 (“Ex-Parte Order”) granted to the Plaintiff’s and if allowed to assess damages thereto. 1 Enclosure 1. On the other hand Originating Summons No WA-24C(ARB)-49-07/2024 (OS 49) is BSC’s application to enforce the Award as binding and enforceable by entering a judgement against MRCB in the High Court of Malaya in accordance with section 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005. 1 Enclosure 1. The Plaintiff here has applied to this Court for an order that: i. a declaration that the Plaintiff be granted an extension of time to commence an arbitration against the Defendant; ii. a declaration that the period between the commencement of the arbitration on 8.9.2022 up to and until the High Court Decision on 8.2.2024 be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the Limitation Act 1953; iii. alternatively, a declaration that the Defendant is precluded from pleading the defence of limitation. 1 Enclosure 1. Whereas in Originating Summons No. WA-24C(ARB)-57-08/2024 (OS 57), Pembinaan Jaya Zira Sdn Bhd (“PJZ”) had sought to set aside the Award on various grounds. 1 CIPAA. Originating Summons. Stay of Adjudication Decision. Enforce Adjudication Decision Dismissed With Costs. 1 Defendant’s application under s. 10(1) of the Arbitration Act, 2005. Stay Application dismissed with costs of RM10,000.00 subject to an allocator. 1 Enclosure 1. Arbitration - Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards — Application to set aside an final arbitral award - Whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the pre-requisites of section 37 of Arbitration Act 2005 to prove breach of natural justice in the arbitral proceedings – Whether the Award was in conflict on public policy grounds – Whether disagreement on the Arbitrator’s interpretation of contractual terms amounts to breach of Natural Justice - Threshold for violation of basic notions of morality and justice - Minimal curial intervention - Court discretion to refuse setting aside. 1 Enclosure 1. The Plaintiff herein has applied to this Court via enclosure 1 for an order that the Award dated 14.12.2024 (“Award”) be set aside in accordance with sections 37(1) (a), (1)(b) Arbitration Act 2005 (Enclosure 1). 1 Family law - Dispute over control of frozen embryos - Whether Applicant was entitled to sole custody, care and control of the remaining two frozen embryos - Whether embryos have legal personhood - Whether intention of Parties was ascertained - Whether consent of Parties was required for future use of embryos - Whether the right to procreate prevailed over the right not to be a parent – Federal Constitution article 5 1 Family law – Child born via IVF after couple had divorced – Whether father of child was obligated to maintain her - Whether lump-sum was permitted for child maintenance – Whether Applicant had justified lump-sum child maintenance of MYR1,440,000 or monthly child maintenance of MYR7,500 - Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 1 Family law - Guardianship and custody - Whether Defendant father should have joint guardianship and joint custody of Plaintiff who is his illegitimate child - Whether Defendant had ever maintained a relationship with the Plaintiff - Whether joint guardianship and joint custody suitable in the present case - Whether Defendant should be granted access or visitation rights 1 Family law - Child maintenance - Claim made by Plaintiff child through her litigation representation who is her mother - Whether arrears justified - Whether there was delay in claiming arrears - Whether arrears was in actual fact to offset a sum owed by Plaintiff's mother to the Defendant 1 Family law - Child maintenance - Claim made by Plaintiff child through her litigation representation who is her mother - Whether monthly amount of child maintenance justified - Whether sum claimed reasonable - Whether Defendant's excuse of financial inability acceptable 1 Civil procedure – Committal proceedings against Plaintiff – Contempt of Court – Application to set aside leave granted to Defendant to initiate committal proceedings against Plaintiff – Whether Defendant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts – Whether Defendant failed to particularise material and specific wrongdoings – Whether Defendant failed to effect personal service of cause papers on Plaintiff – Whether Defendant’s application was abuse of process of court 1 Civil procedure – Committal proceedings against Plaintiff – Contempt of Court – Whether there was wilful refusal by Plaintiff to comply with terms of the Consent Order – Whether Plaintiff’s non-compliance of terms of Consent Order had effect of reducing time period of Defendant’s access to the Child 1 Civil procedure – Committal proceedings against Defendant – Contempt of Court – Application to set aside leave granted to Plaintiff to initiate committal proceedings against Defendant – Whether Plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts – Whether Plaintiff failed to particularise material and specific wrongdoings – Whether Plaintiff failed to effect personal service of cause papers on Plaintiff – Whether Plaintiff’s application was abuse of process of court 1 Civil procedure – Committal proceedings against Defendant – Contempt of Court – Whether there was wilful refusal by the Defendant to comply with terms of the Consent Order – Whether Defendant’s non-compliance of terms of Consent Order had effect of reducing time period of Plaintiff’s access to the Child 1 [1] Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia (Company No.: 198201004121 (83868-X)) with its registered office address at Lot 2.21. Lion Industrial Park, 40300 Shah Alam, Selangor. 1 [2] Defendant is a company incorporated in Malaysia (Company No.: 199001014421 (206090-V)) with its registered office address at Level 23, Maju Tower, 1001, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur. At all material times, the Defendant is the registered owner of Maju Perdana building (Charged Property). 1 [3] This Court is of the considered view that none of the issues raised by the Defendant is ‘cause to the contrary’ that could dismiss this OS. 1 [4] Enclosure 1 is allowed with costs. The outstanding sum is RM257,542,200.00 as at 20.06.2025 as shown in the Affidavit affirmed by Shahlan bin Md Shukor @ Kadari on 16.06.2025 in Enclosure 22. 1 Moneylending – section 17(1) MLA 1951 provides that interest payable for the period of the loan is capitalised at the end of this period, and default interest charged thereon is not considered as interest on interest Land law – demand for an amount in breach of section 17 (1) MLA 1951 amounts to an unlawful demand in contravention of a rule of law and is a cause to the contrary sufficient to defeat an enforcement of a charge action 1 1. The Plaintiff applied to auction off the properties charged to it by the Defendant in executing a Judgment against IHME LCC (“the Borrower”). The application by way of an Originating Summons was made under section 256 and 257 of the National Land Code (“NLC”) as well as Orders 31, 31A and 83 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). 1 Cause to the contrary 1 6. A large part of the Defendant’s affidavit is dedicated to putting the Plaintiff to strict poof which in the Court’s view have been satisfied. Part of the rest of the affidavit by the Defendant consists of bare denial. 1 7. The only cause to the contrary discernable from the affidavit of the Defendant is first, that the charge on the properties of the Defendant being a 3rd party charge was illegal and unenforceable under the law. 1 8. Secondly the charge was in a nature of a guarantee and therefore any order for sale must be preceded by an application for leave as the Defendant was not a party to the judgment. 1 9. The only averment in rebuttal to the Plaintiff’s application for order for sale is that the Borrower had satisfied the court judgment which was concealed by the Plaintiff. However, no evidence was adduced to support this rebuttal. 1 10. In the Court’s view none of the factors above constitute “cause to the contrary”. The provisions in the National Land Code do not prohibit 3rd party charges. A whole chapter is dedicated to charging of land as well as the effect thereof under Part 16 of the National Land Code. 1 11. The procedure to enforce the charge is also clearly spelled out and in this case the Court is satisfied that the procedure has been complied with. The necessary documents have been properly prepared and served on the Defendant. The Defendant’s contention otherwise is unsubstantiated or supported and is a merely a bare statement to thwart the sale. 1 12. As the Defendant has failed to show any cause to the contrary the Court allows the Plaintiff’s application. 1 Sec 256 & 257 National Land Code - application by Plaintiff bank for order for sale : - whether Defendants have established cause to the contrary; issues raised relating toe whether condition precedents met; alleged non receipt of notice to recall and lack of details whether sum exorbitant whether section 21 Limitation act applies; was claim on interest time barred. 1 - application allowed with costs as no cause to the contrary established. 1 Application to set aside order for sale order. Foreclosure proceedings. Cause to the contrary. The defendant applied to set aside an order for sale granted under sections 256 and 257 of the National Land Code 1965, alleging procedural irregularities, defective service of notices and prejudice from the plaintiff’s handling of an insurance claim. The court held that the originating summons was validly constituted, statutory notices were properly served and the insurance claim dispute amounted only to a contractual issue outside the narrow scope of section 256(3) of the National Land Code 1965. The application was dismissed with costs. 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademark – Plaintiff opposed defendant’s trademark application – Plaintiff’s opposition dismissed by Registrar – Whether defendant’s mark likely to deceive or cause confusion – Whether disclaimed word should be considered in deciding whether there is likelihood of deception or confusion – Trade Marks Act 1976, s14(1)(a) 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Copyright – Infringement – Sale of TV boxes with pre-installed software allowing access to Astro content – Whether act of communication to the public – Whether infringement of plaintiff’s copyright –Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(1)(aa), s. 36(1) 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Patent – Application for assignment – Whether the defendant was employed by the plaintiff – Whether the defendant created the inventions in the performance of his contract of employment – Whether there is a provision in the contract of employment stating that the rights to the patents do not belong to the plaintiff – Whether the patents ought to be assigned to the plaintiff – Patents Act 1983, ss. 19, 20 1 Land Law – Foreclosure – Tawarruq facilities – Default – Secured lending – Legal charge – Statutory notice – Form 16D – Service – Deeming provisions – Whether Plaintiff satisfied statutory conditions precedent – Pending application to set aside default judgment in separate suit – Whether Mareva injunction affects the Plaintiff bank as third-party secured creditor – Corporate separateness – Subsidiary assets – Injunction against parent company – Whether restrains sale of charged property owned by subsidiary – Cause to the contrary – Whether Defendant established cause to the contrary – National Land Code 1965, s.254 & s.256 – Rules of Court 2012, O.2 r.3, O.28 & O.83 r.1. 1 Land Law — Lien holder’s caveat — Application for stay of order for sale proceedings pending disposal of related suits — Whether overlap of factual and legal issues justified stay — Distinction between stay of execution and stay of proceedings — Test to be applied — Rules of Court 2012, O.83 r.1. & O.92 r.4. 1 Civil Procedure — Conversion of Originating Summons to Writ — Whether substantial disputes of fact existed — Whether viva voce evidence necessary — Rules of Court 2012, O.28 r.8. 1 Civil Procedure — Consolidation of suits — Whether consolidation would promote convenience and justice — Whether overlapping factual matrix warranted consolidation —Rules of Court 2012, O.4 r.1. 1 Land law – Charge – Order for sale – “Cause to the contrary” under s. 256(3) of National Land Code – Restrictive interpretation – Whether defects in statutory notice constitute cause to the contrary – Shariah compliance – Effect of non-compliance on contract enforceability – Section 281 Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 – Whether Shariah breach constitutes “cause to the contrary” – Undue influence – Unconscionable bargain – Allegation of signing documents at home without independent advice – Whether sufficient evidence to establish equitable defence – Rules of Court 2012; O.7 & O.83 – National Land Code 1965; ss. 241, 254, 256(3), 257 & 340 – Islamic Financial Services Act 2013; ss. 28 & 281 – Contracts Act 1950; s.16 – Federal Constitution; item 7(j) of the Federal List in the Ninth Schedule. 1 Banking law – Islamic finance – Bai' Bithaman Ajil (BBA) facility – Default – Ibra' (rebate) – Whether ibra' deductible in computation of debt upon default by bank – Distinction between early settlement by customer and termination upon default - Conclusive evidence clauses – Whether “manifest error” shown 1 Evidence – Estoppel – Conduct of parties – Withdrawal of security deposit (GIA-i) by chargor – Subsequent challenge to computation for not crediting deposit – Whether estopped 1 Land Law - Charge – Foreclosure – Cause to the contrary – Whether sufficient reason for refusal of order – Whether the plaintiff’s rejection of the defendant’s repayment proposals was unreasonable – Whether such unreasonable conduct constitutes a valid defence against the foreclosure action – Whether balance outstanding sums unsubstantiated – Whether notice of termination and 16D notice were received – Whether foreclosure action is premature – Whether certified statement of account conclusive - Whether ‘cause to the contrary’ established – National Land Code 1965, s. 241 & s. 256(3) – Rules of Court 2012, O.83. 1 removal as a director is not valid if it was not on the agenda in the notice of a board of directors meeting-a breach of natural justice-such an important issue must be put on the agenda for the meeting-defendant had breached natural justice by failing to place the issue of the plaintiff purported breach of articles 72(g) and (h) on the BOD meeting agenda so that the plaintiff is notified of the action to declare his removal as a director so that he can be given an opportunity to defend himself-the director should have been given notice of the matter by placing it on the agenda and issued an injunction to restrain the Board from excluding him from any board meeting-The board of directors cannot decide on a matter not stated in the agenda-unless the articles of a company provide to the contrary, no meeting of a board is valid unless reasonable notice of it, and the relevant agenda that is to be discussed at it, is given to the directors-where the purpose of a meeting is expressly stated, the meeting will be limited to addressing the specified business. The meeting cannot decide on matters not on the agenda-two board meetings were not valid because each board meeting was convened for a specified purpose, yet the resolutions purportedly passed at each meeting were unrelated to that specified purpose- 1 Issue 1 - whether a court can set aside an earlier court order which had approved a scheme of arrangement under section 366(3) and (4) of the CA 2016-2 schools of thought in relation to Court’s jurisdiction post a sanction order-The first school of thought is - the court cannot alter the substance of the scheme save in cases of obvious mistakes or fraud-The second school of thought is - a sanction order operates as an order of court. The Court may make any order subsequent to the sanction order under its inherent jurisdiction if the sanction order does not represent the true intention of the actual order or under the slip rule-the English approach but subject to the added supervisory powers vested”-section 366[3] and [4] of the CA 2016-“the English approach”-“the Australian approach”-The court has no power expressly granted to it under section 366 to amend or add any new terms to a scheme of arrangement that had been approved by the court under section 366[3] and [4] of the CA 2016-Likewise, there should be no implied power under common law or the Rules of Court 2012 to amend or add any new terms to a scheme of arrangement that had been approved by the court under section 366[3] and [4] of the CA 2016. This is because the court cannot alter the substance of the scheme and impose upon the scheme creditors an arrangement to which they had not agreed to in the first place-A further reason for this approach is that a scheme of arrangement that had been approved by the court must have finality. Scheme creditors like trade creditors and financial institutions must be able to act on the terms of a scheme of arrangement without fear that the terms may be varied or altered subsequently by the court-the court can only set aside Scheme E if consent to the scheme was obtained by fraud or where there are obvious mistakes in the documents setting out Scheme E-It is trite law that the court will not assist any party who is privy to illegality-It is trite that the court will not condone or lend its hand to a party who takes advantage of its own wrongdoings and comes to court without clean hands-if Tunai relies on fraud to set aside Scheme E, it has to file a new suit and make all scheme creditors and the applicants here as defendants. This is because all parties affected by a court order must be made parties to the suit-allegation of a total failure of consideration is not a ground to set aside Scheme E-Section 369D of the CA 2016-Under section 369D [1], the court has the power, upon application by a company or creditor bound by the scheme of arrangement approved by the court under section 366[4], to clarify any terms of such scheme-Under section 369D [2], where the court is satisfied that the scheme company has committed an act or omission, or made a decision, that results in a breach of any terms of the arrangement, the Court may, on an application of any creditor bound by the arrangement confirm, reverse or modify the act, omission or decision of the company or give such direction or make such order as the Court thinks fit to rectify the act, omission or decision of the company-Tunai is estopped from setting aside Scheme E having failed to disclose the Secret Deal to the scheme creditors and disclose to the court the Secret Deal when the court was asked to grant the Sanction Order- 1 pre-action discovery by the plaintiff against RHB pursuant to Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012-curb money laundering under the Financial Services Act 2013 and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 200-Minimum Due Diligence Guide for Foreign Exchange Rules - Financial Institution-principles to be applied on pre-action discovery-from Order 24 rule 7A, Order 24 rule 8 and Order 24 rule 13 ROC 2012-The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that the court should exercise its discretion to grant a pre-action discovery-In respect of a pre-action discovery for a defendant to disclose documents on the identity of the wrongdoers, the plaintiff should show that the defendant although not the wrongdoers, has somehow got mixed up in the tortious acts of that wrongdoers so as to facilitate their wrongdoings so that he comes under a duty to assist the plaintiff who had been wronged by disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers-In respect of a pre-action discovery for information contained in a document to be provided by a defendant the plaintiff must show that the information is necessary in order for him to determine if he can even commence legal action against the intended defendant. In such cases, the pre-action discovery order ought to be made to avoid unnecessary litigation thus saving costs, preventing wastage of time and resources which is what pre-action discovery seeks to achieve-To resist disclosure, the defendant can show that the plaintiff is on a fishing trip or fishing expedition-To resist disclosure, the defendant can also show that that there is some consideration of public policy which prevents him from making this disclosure. Consideration of public policy which can prevent him from making disclosure maybe that such disclosures would or might impair or hamper the efficient conduct of a defendant’s statutory duties. And secondly such disclosure would or might be prejudicial to those whose identity would be disclosed. The Court will then have to do a balancing act by examining the facts. On the whole, if a document would be discoverable in a discovery application filed once a suit is commenced, such a document should be discoverable in my view. Especially if its disclosure now is necessary in order for the plaintiff to determine if he can even commence legal action in the first place against an intended defendant. For in such cases, the pre-action discovery order ought to be made to avoid unnecessary litigation thus saving costs and preventing wastage of time and resources which is the very objective of Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012-Apart from considerations of public policy that prevent disclosure, the defendant can also show that he is prevented by common law or some statute from making this disclosure. Statutory defences available are for example legal professional privilege under section 126 to 129 of the Evidence Act 1950 or documents and information protected under sections 2, 13A and 16a of the Official Secrets Act 1972- When ordering pre-action discovery, a defendant is entitled to his costs of the application, unless the Court orders otherwise, and of producing a copy each of the documents ordered on an indemnity basis-pre-action discovery is to assist a plaintiff who “does not yet know whether he has a viable claim against the defendant, and the rule is there to assist him in his search for the answer.” The word “viable” must not be understood to mean that the plaintiff is entitled to pre-action discovery for the purpose of augmenting his case or to “complete his entire picture of the case 1 Civil Procedure: ROC 2012 - injunction to restrain the implementation of resolutions passed at an Extraordinary General Meeting ("EGM") - whether there is a serious question to be tried - where the balance of convenience lies - whether damages would be an adequate remedy 1 COMPANY LAW: Oppression – Remedy in cases of oppression under Section 346 of Companies Act 2016 – Affairs of company conducted in manner oppressive to members – Unfair discrimination against shareholders – Whether passing of resolutions without proper authority constitutes oppressive conduct – Whether exercise of casting vote in written resolutions valid under company's constitution – Whether breakdown in relationship between equal shareholders justifies relief – Whether buyout order appropriate remedy where oppression established – Application of 'visible departure from standards of fair dealing' test – Whether corporate wrongs distinguishable from oppression – Whether deadlock between equal shareholders grounds for judicial intervention 1 Declaration that insurance policy not enforceable under section 96 RTA-underlying purpose of compulsory motor insurance against third party risks-if the insurer’s insured is still registered as the owner of the car at the time of the accident, this imposes a liability on his insurer and it is irrelevant if the car had been sold to someone else-The rationale for s 96 of the RTA-s 10(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1934-This proviso thus gives to plaintiffs who obtain judgment in an action for damages caused by the negligent driving or management of a motor car a direct right of action against the insurance company who issued the policy -a declaration obtained under s 96(3) would amount to a complete defence against any recovery proceedings by the injured third party under s 96(1). It is therefore only fair and logical that the injured third party should not only be added as a party to the insurer’s declaration proceedings but also be given every opportunity to defend his or her rights to oppose the application by an insurer without qualification- 1 Application to proceed with oppression Originating Summons as if begun by way of a Writ-section 346 of the Companies Act 2016-that the affairs of PSG are being conducted or the powers of the directors are being exercised in a manner oppressive to him as a member-the plaintiff filed an application-under Order 28 rule 8 [1] Rules of Court 2012-to proceed with the OS as if it was begun by way of a Writ-Order 28 rule 4 ROC 2012 to cross-examine-mandatory under Order 88 Rules of Court 2012 for an action under section 346 CA 2016 to be commenced by way of an OS-fishing expedition-Where the facts are contradicted on substantial grounds, the court has the discretion under Order 28 rule 8(1) ROC 2012 to order that the proceedings be continued as if the cause or matter had been begun by writ-The plaintiff may by his own accord make such an application for conversion. However, the court may dismiss the conversion application where documentary evidence is sufficient to address the issues arising-The test on conversion of OS to writ is whether the facts are contradicted on substantial grounds and whether there is a plea of fraud. It is not whether the plaintiff is embarking on a fishing expedition-the court will dismiss the conversion application where documentary evidence is sufficient to address the issues arising-At this stage of whether the court should convert the OS to a writ all that the plaintiff needs to show is that prima facie he has set out facts, which if proven, will support a finding of oppression.-These allegations are in fact pleas of fraud which mean the plaintiff cannot litigate by way of an OS-Historical origins and scope of the term “fishing expedition”-in a conversion application-that the only relevant considerations are whether the plaintiff is making ‘a plea of fraud’ and whether there is ‘conflicting affidavit evidence’ between the parties that require a trial in order for the judge to decide whether to prefer the testimony of the plaintiff or the defendant-if the hearing is by way of an OS and there are disputed facts as the court must then decide based solely on a consideration of the undisputed facts-the need to subpoena witnesses 1 Company law- Scheme of Arrangement-Section 366 of Companies Act 2016-Orders to convene scheme meeting-Convening Issues-jurisdictional or quasi-jurisdictional barries-classification based on rights and not interest-full and frank disclosure of all material facts-no convening order if there are factors lead to the refusal-bona fide and not abuse of process. 1 Company Law- Scheme of Arrangment-Section 368 Companies Act 2016-Restraining orders-cooling off period of 1 year before new application-feasibility and merits due consideration by creditors-power to grant is also derived from Section 368 Companies Act 2016-ad interim orders had exhausted 3 months prescribed duration. 1 v. The right to counsel of choice is not absolute and has to give way in appropriate cases to the overriding principles of fairness and justice 1 Company Law — Derivative Action — Leave to Commence Proceedings — Sections 347 & 348 Companies Act 2016 — Whether Plaintiffs Acting in Good Faith — Whether Prima Facie in Best Interests of Company — Distinction Between Corporate Causes of Action and Personal/Managerial Complaints — Partial Grant of Leave 1 Contractual Interpretation - Whether the Defendant had the contractual right to increase the monthly contribution unilaterally – The Court emphasized that insurance contracts must be interpreted according to their express terms and not based on unilateral assumptions or implied obligations. Supplementary vs Basic Certificate – Whether the Defendant’s notices were valid under the terms of the Basic and Supplementary Certificates – The Court distinguished between termination of supplementary benefits and the entire policy, finding the Defendant’s notices improperly applied to the whole policy. 1 No Right to Unilateral Variation – Whether the Plaintiff was properly notified and agreed to any changes in contribution requirements – The Defendant failed to prove any contractual right to increase the contribution amount or that the Plaintiff agreed to such changes. 1 Applicant’s alleged that the share transfer agreement is void for failure of consideration and seeking a consequential order for the return of the shares transferred pursuant to the agreement – The Redeemable Convertible Preference Shares (“RCPS”) had been registered in the name of the 1st Plaintiff pursuant to Section 78, Companies Act 2016 – The 1st Plaintiff had also dealt with the RCPS by transferring the same to third parties, that the Forms of Transfer of Securities were executed in accordance to Section 105, Companies Act 2016 – The Agreement had in fact been fully performed – Injunctive reliefs sought are wide and disproportionate to the Plaintiff’s concerns. Originating Summons is dismissed. 1 Plaintiffs’ application for the company to be reinstated onto the SSM register of companies – Whether the plaintiffs are ‘persons aggrieved’ under section 555 of the Companies Act 2016 – Whether the company was carrying on business and in operation while struck off from the SSM register – Whether it is just for the company to be reinstated onto the SSM register. 1 COMPANY LAW: Minority shareholder oppression – section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 – Locus standi – Whether plaintiffs had locus standi – Whether plaintiffs were members of company – Prior Federal Court order determining shareholding – Fraudulent transfer of shares – Restoration of original shareholding structure – No locus standi established 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Sealed court orders – Construction of ambiguous court orders – Inconsistency between terms of order and findings – Whether sealed order prevails over grounds of judgment – Order to be construed holistically with grounds, pleadings and litigation history – Purposive interpretation to give effect to judicial intent 1 INSOLVENCY LAW: Undischarged bankrupt – Shares and associated rights as choses in action – sections 8(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) Insolvency Act 1967 – Whether bankrupt may commence proceedings without prior sanction of Director General of Insolvency – Prior sanction mandatory – Subsequent sanction insufficient – Proceedings instituted without sanction void 1 Companies and Corporations – Minority Oppression – Allegation of oppressive conduct by Defendants – Whether Plaintiff established a claim for minority oppression under Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 – Plaintiff removed from management and denied physical access to company premises – Whether such actions constituted oppression – Breakdown of mutual trust and confidence among shareholders – Whether the Plaintiff’s rights as shareholder and director were disregarded – Whether Defendants acted for an improper purpose or breached fiduciary duties – Sufficiency of evidence to support claim of oppressive conduct – Applicability and scope of Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016. 1 Company Law: Oppression - Acts and conducts amounting to oppression - Oppression claim under s.346 of the Companies Act 2016 - The Plaintiff, as 30% minority shareholder, claims oppressive conduct that excluded him from management - Whether the nature of relationship between the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant is a quasi-partnership - Whether the Plaintiff had legitimate expectation to participate in management - Whether 2nd Defendant’s actions leading to the Company’s failure to purchase property amounted to oppression - unclean hands - No finding of oppression under s.346 of the Companies Act 2016 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Derivative proceedings under Sections 347 and 348 Companies Act 2016 - Leave to commence a derivative action - Application of a Proposed Intervener- O.15 r.6(2)(b)(i)- Alleged misappropriation and criminal breach of trust- Examining the merits of the case or conducting a mini-trial - Common law right for leave to intervene derivative proceedings - establishing the necessity and any exceptional circumstances. 1 Companies Act, Section 346 - Whether the removal of directors by the duly convened extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) amounts to oppression conduct – Whether there was an exception on the general principle – Whether arise the case of “quasi-partnership” –The Court held that there is no oppression within the meaning of Section 346 – The issue of “quasi-partnerships “ was not fully argued. The removal of directors by ordinary resolutions is a legitimate act of shareholder democracy, taken to protect the Company from directors who had engaged in serious misconduct – Originating Summons is dismissed with costs. 1 COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Minority oppression - Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 - Removal of Plaintiff as director - Constitution of the Company - Whether there is a right in equity for Plaintiff to remain as director - Quasi-partnership - No provision in the constitution for permanent representation on the Board - Claims of mismanagement by the Defendants leading to financial deterioration - Whether an oppression action is proper recourse - Oppression action dismissed 1 Fortuna injunction application pending disposal of a civil suit which was premised on the same ground – Claim for a non-payment - Disputed over validity of the Statutory Demand - Notice pursuant to Section 466(1)(a), Companies Act 2016 issued without a judgment – Disputed claim and challenged over the Debt being pre-mature – The Court held that by seeking an extension of time to pay the Demanded Sum, confirming that the Demanded Sum was not disputed – Absence of evidence to show the Force Majeure Events occurred - a judgment before instituting a Winding-up proceedings is not required – Application dismissed. 1 leave of the court under Order 52 r.3 Rules of Court 2012- order for committal of the proposed contemnor- Contempt proceedings- test in granting leave for committal proceedings- a prima facie case of contempt has to be established- sufficient basis for contempt -before granting leave- necessitating careful scrutiny of the evidence- well balanced rational before considering granting leave 1 Companies Act, Section 109 – Registration – Application to register the transmission of shares by the grant of letters of administration and the faraid order – Whether the filing of Harta Sepencarian Claim constitutes a variation – Whether this suit is premature and misconceived pending determination of the Harta Sepencarian Claim filed prior to this suit – The Court held that under Islamic law principles, the distribution of and estate under faraid would be contingent upon prior settlement of the harta sepencarian rights, with which the Syariah courts has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate – the granting of LA and faraid order is not conclusive - pending Harta Sepencarian Claim in the Syariah Court 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pre-action discovery - Order 24 Rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 - Alleged unauthorised transfer of shares - Whether pre-action discovery necessary - Whether the documents sought were relevant to determine if a viable legal claim exists - Whether action is tantamount to a fishing expedition - Whether action is invasive and/or oppressive - Pre-action discovery allowed 1 Leave to commence derivative action – Section 348 of Companies Act 2016 – Where director alleged that purchase by company was made without proper board approval – Whether Plaintiff acted in good faith – Whether it appears prima facie to be in the best interest of the company to grant leave – Authority of sole shareholder – Wholly-owned subsidiary – Where director refuses to approve resolution of company with sole shareholder – Burden of proof of good faith – Whether there is genuine concern for corporate governance – Practical and commercial interests of the company – Approbate and reprobate – Plaintiff’s earlier conduct showed no objection 1 INJUNCTION LAW: Variation of interlocutory injunctions – Material change of circumstances test – Whether new facts coming to light after granting justified variation – Whether change in project status from construction to completion constituted material change – Whether regulatory approvals and certifications represented material change – Certificate of Completion and Compliance as changed circumstance 1 INJUNCTION LAW: Undue hardship test – Whether injunction orders caused undue hardship to company operations – Whether financial losses from Liquidated Ascertained Damages constituted undue hardship – Whether operational paralysis from consent requirements caused hardship – Whether prevention of statutory submissions caused hardship – Whether frustration of director's duties constituted hardship 1 INJUNCTION LAW: Balance of convenience test – Whether potential harm from varying injunction outweighed harm from maintaining it – Whether continuing financial losses justified variation – Whether regulatory deadlines created urgency favouring variation – Whether protection of company's interests as going concern favoured variation 1 INJUNCTION LAW: Scope and modification of injunctive relief – Whether specific operational matters should be excluded from general restraint – Whether safeguards and limitations should accompany variation – Whether independent professional oversight required for certain activities – Whether detailed disclosure requirements appropriate 1 CONTRACT - Breach - Share sale agreement - Agreement terminated pursuant to Defendant’s breach - Plaintiffs sought consequential remedies following the termination - Reciprocal promise - No CDS account provided - Whether Plaintiff had prevented Defendant from performing reciprocal promise - Whether act constitutes Plaintiff's failure to perform its reciprocal promise - Whether providing CDS account is a substantive obligation - s.52 and 53 of the Contracts Act 1950 1 Application to strike out the-cause of action-the requirements set out Sub-Paragraph 323(3)(d)(i) of Companies Act 2016-written undertaking requested in commercial transactions- company’s constitution which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Companies Act 2016- Breach of Rule 15 on Rules on Take-Overs- Persons Acting in Concert. 1 COMPANY LAW: Minority shareholder oppression – Denial of access to company accounts and financial information – Diversion of company funds to related entities – Whether systematic denial of director's access to financial records constitutes oppressive conduct – Whether unilateral transfer of company funds to entities solely owned by majority shareholders amounts to unfair prejudice – Whether buy-out remedy at fair value without minority discount is appropriate relief – Whether contemporaneous bank statement descriptions determine nature of payments as loans versus operational reimbursements – Applicability of Section 346 Companies Act 2016 – Standards of fair dealing and conditions of fair play in minority shareholder relationships 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Counterclaim in originating summons proceedings – Whether counterclaim in affidavit complies with procedural requirements – Compliance with Order 28 Rule 7 Rules of Court 2012 – Whether formal application required for counterclaim directions in originating summons 1 COMPANY LAW: Corporate governance – Removal of directors – Statutory compliance with Sections 206 and 322 of Companies Act 2016 – Whether special notice of 28 days required for removal of director – Whether ordinary resolution at properly convened general meeting mandatory – Whether mere notification to Companies Commission sufficient to effect valid removal – Whether procedural defects in removal process curable – Appointment of company secretary – Whether board resolution required under Section 236 of Companies Act 2016 – Whether appointment without board approval invalid – Oppression remedy under Section 346 – Whether improper removal of director constitutes oppressive conduct – Whether exclusion from company management prejudicial to member's interests – Rectification of company register under Section 602 – Whether Section 602 remedy must be exhausted before seeking court relief – Whether Section 602 provides exclusive remedy – Doctrine of approbate and reprobate – Whether subsequent acknowledgment of removal constitutes waiver of rights – Whether statutory compliance requirements can be overridden by estoppel 1 Substituted Service of the Originating Summons dated 17.8.2021 was properly granted - It is trite that the Court will adopt a pragmatic approach to the application of the Practice Note - It is sufficient if it is substantially followed - The Practice Note is not law, but merely a direction for administrative purpose – Plaintiff has exercised all reasonable due diligence - purpose of substituted service of an originating process is to bring notice of the existence of legal proceedings to a defendant or respondent - the Judgment obtained by the Plaintiff was regular and should not be set aside ex debito justitiae – Although the 2nd Defendant did not appear and did not file any affidavits to oppose the OS, this does not mean that the OS was not heard on its merits when the Judgment was granted - the purported defence put forth was nothing more than bare allegations unsupported by evidence - the Judgment was deemed served on the 2nd Defendant on 26.4.2022 after substituted service was effected according to the SS Order for Judgment - There was an undue delay of 2 years and the 2nd Defendant has failed to show satisfactory reasons or grounds for this delay. 1 Companies - Winding Up - Fortuna injunction - Statutory notice under s 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 - Judgment in default of appearance - Pending appeal against dismissal of application to set aside - Whether debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds - Irreparable damage 1 a Fortuna injunction to restrain the defendant from commencing winding up proceedings based on a summary judgment -a pending appeal does not preclude the judgment creditor i.e. the defendant here from presenting a winding-up petition. No court will grant a Fortuna injunction to restrain the judgment creditor from commencing winding up proceedings based on a summary judgment that has not been stayed-If it is an ex parte OS then the party filing it is described as the applicant-A Fortuna injunction is the name given to a type of injunction applied by a plaintiff to restrain the filing of an intended winding up petition or if filed, its further prosecution. This is because the presentation of the petition will produce irreparable damage to the plaintiff company-The presentation of a winding up petition may be restrained by injunction where its presentation, or if presented its further continuation, would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. The application of this principle has two branches-The first branch applies in cases where the presentation or continuation of the petition might produce irreparable damage to the plaintiff company and where the petition has no chance of success. This branch will apply if the defendant has no locus standi to file a petition or does not satisfy the statutory requirements under the Companies Act 2016 to file a winding -up petition-The second branch applies in cases where a defendant proposing to present a petition has chosen to assert a disputed claim, by a procedure which might produce irreparable damage to the plaintiff company, rather than by a suitable alternative procedure-A party who has a court Judgment which has not been stayed is entitled to present a winding-up petition based on the Judgment. The filing of an appeal against the said judgment does not make it a disputed debt. The court will not grant a Fortuna injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition based on a judgment-A summary judgment remains regular and enforceable until it is set aside on appeal. The fact that there is a pending appeal does not make it a disputed debt. A judgment creditor is entitled to present a winding-up petition based on the summary judgment-The court will not grant a Fortuna injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition based on a summary judgment-A party who has an Adjudication Decision made under the CIPAA in its favour is entitled to present a winding-up petition based on the Adjudication Decision. There is no requirement to register the Adjudication Decision in court prior to presenting the petition-A party who has an Adjudication Decision made under the CIPAA in its favour is entitled to present a winding-up petition based on the Adjudication Decision. The court will not grant a Fortuna injunction to restrain the presentation of the winding-up petition-As long as the debt cannot be disputed, it is not consequence whether or not it will cause irreparable damage to the company, if presented. A valid and enforceable judgment of court as in the present case, (unless set aside or stayed) cannot be considered a disputed debt-a cross-claim or counterclaim by a respondent cannot be used to defeat a winding-up petition filed based on a summary judgment obtained by the petitioner- 1 COMPANY LAW: Corporate meetings – Extraordinary general meeting – Shareholders' deadlock – Application under Section 314 of Companies Act 2016 – Modification of quorum requirements – Whether impracticable to hold shareholders' meeting in prescribed manner – Whether unregistered shareholders' agreement can override company's Articles of Association – Whether deliberate non-attendance at meetings constitutes deadlock justifying court intervention – Whether court should exercise power to order meeting with modified quorum – Validity of EGM notices – Effect of failure to notify company auditor – Whether procedural irregularities can be cured by court order under Section 582 – Effects of court-ordered EGM pursuant to Section 314(5) 1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: Shareholder disputes – Relationship between holding company and subsidiary – Minority shareholder obstruction – Urgent funding requirements – Rights issues – Whether shareholders' agreement binding without compliance with Section 36(3) Companies Act 2016 – Whether affiliation between companies justified consideration of related company's affairs – Whether proposed share price for rights issue fair and reasonable – Validity of notices for corporate meetings – Majority shareholder rights – Effect of tactical non-attendance at corporate meetings – Application of "statutory contract" principle to company constitution 1 REMEDIES: Section 314 Companies Act 2016 – Section 346 Companies Act 2016 – Oppression remedy – Court's power to modify quorum requirements – Court's power to give ancillary and consequential directions – Appropriateness of alternative remedies under Section 346 – Whether circumstances warranted forced share purchase at discounted value – Court's jurisdiction to intervene in deadlocked companies – Balance between facilitating corporate action and protecting minority shareholder rights 1 PROCEDURAL LAW: Originating summons – Scope of matters identified in intitulement – Whether matters concerning related company within scope of application – Sufficiency of particulars in originating process – Court's power to remedy procedural defects in company proceedings – Section 582 Companies Act 2016 – Effect of technical non-compliance with statutory requirements 1 BANKING AND FINANCE LAW: Facilities agreements – Cancellation of banking facilities – Legal effect of cancellation on facilities agreement – Whether cancellation of facilities effectively terminates facilities agreement – Whether future obligations under facilities agreement discharged upon cancellation – Whether consolidation and set-off provisions survive cancellation – Survivability of contractual terms post-termination – Whether Section 16.04 consolidation clause survives facilities cancellation – Whether consolidation rights tied to performance obligations – Commercial intent and purpose of facilities agreement – Whether perpetual enforceability intended by parties – Events of default under facilities agreement – Change in shareholding without consent – Waiver of default by conduct of parties 1 COMPANY LAW: Derivative proceedings – Leave to commence derivative action – Sections 347 and 348(1) of Companies Act 2016 – Whether application barred by res judicata – Whether application constitutes multiplicity of proceedings – Whether complainant complied with Section 348(2) notice requirements – Whether complainant acting in good faith – Whether proceedings prima facie in best interests of company – Whether undue delay in bringing application – Breach of fiduciary duties by director – Directors' duties of loyalty and conflict of interest – Whether director placed personal interests above company duties – Fraud and conspiracy by director – Whether corporate deadlock justified derivative proceedings – Whether reasonable prospects of success 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata – Whether previous proceedings involving different parties and causes of action preclude fresh proceedings – Whether contractual breach claims against third party bar fiduciary duty claims against director – Multiplicity of proceedings – Whether separate legal relationships and remedies justify concurrent proceedings – Whether proceedings serve distinct purposes against different defendants – Notice requirements under statutory derivative action provisions – Whether failure to respond to statutory notice constitutes admission of allegations 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating summons – Application to convert to writ action – Whether substantial factual disputes exist requiring trial – Whether documentary evidence sufficient for determination – Whether cross-examination under Order 38 Rule 2 adequate alternative to conversion – Whether conversion justified by proposed counterclaim 1 COMPANY LAW: Judicial management – Interim Judicial Manager's remuneration – Assessment of reasonableness of remuneration claim – Whether detailed statement of work sufficient without oral testimony – Whether composite hourly rate requires examination through trial – Whether work performed by team members requires individual verification – Assessment of pre-appointment and post-termination work – Whether contemporaneous documentation adequate for remuneration determination 1 INSOLVENCY LAW: Remuneration of insolvency practitioners – Statutory requirements under Section 407(4) Companies Act 2016 – Whether taxation-like process required for assessment – Whether Court determination adequate based on documentary evidence – Assessment of work undertaken in course of administration – Whether fair and reasonable remuneration determinable without trial 1 Company Law — Internal Management — Judicial non-intervention — Principle that courts are slow to interfere in the internal affairs of a company acting within its powers — Appointment and removal of directors 1 Directors’ Resolutions in Writing (DRW) — Validity of circular resolutions — Appointment of additional independent directors — Re-designation of Managing Director — Change of corporate representatives for subsidiary companies 1 Companies Act 2016 — Section 203 — Appointment of two or more directors by a single resolution — Whether restriction applies only to general meetings of a public company or extends to directors’ resolutions 1 Company Constitution — Statutory contract — Section 33(1) of the Companies Act 2016 — Harmonious construction of Articles — Duty of the Court to give effect to plain and unambiguous language 1 Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Ad interim injunction — Application to preserve status quo and prevent implementation of impugned resolutions — Effect of dismissal of substantive Originating Summons on interlocutory reliefs 1 COMPANIES: Winding up – Fortuna injunction – Statutory notice under Sections 465(1)(e) and 466(1)(a) of Companies Act 2016 – Continuation of services after contract expiry – Whether debt bona fide disputed on substantial grounds – Whether irreparable harm relevant when debt not disputed – Whether commercial insolvency established – Application of contract by conduct principles – Timing of dispute after statutory notice – Whether commercial relationship evidenced by payment conduct – Whether denial of liability after accepting services constitutes genuine dispute – Test for commercial insolvency – Present ability to meet current obligations – Distinction between net asset position and cash flow solvency 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction – Fortuna injunction – Restraint of winding-up petition – Balance of convenience – Whether abuse of process – Whether evidence of afterthought claims sufficient to establish dispute – Two-limb test for Fortuna injunction – Whether petition has no chance of success – Whether irreparable damage would result – Standard of proof for bona fide dispute – Timing of objections in commercial disputes – Whether claims of defective work raised after statutory notice relevant 1 CONTRACT: Formation – Expiry of written agreement – Contract by conduct – Continuation of services after formal contract expiry – Whether oral contract or implied contract established through conduct – Whether belated complaints after statutory notice constitute genuine dispute – Acknowledgment of invoices – Effect of partial payments – Request for extension of services – Estoppel by conduct – Principles of acceptance through payment – Contractual rights and obligations post-termination 1 COMPANY LAW: Winding-up – Fortuna injunction – Disputed debt – Whether debt arising from settlement agreement incorporated in consent judgment could be considered disputed – Whether delay in milestone payment triggered acceleration clause – Whether court will exercise jurisdiction to restrain winding-up proceedings – Service of statutory notice – Proper service methods – Whether service by registered post satisfies statutory requirements – Solvency of company – Whether solvency is relevant when debt arises from judgment – Abuse of process – Whether pursuing winding-up against solvent company constitutes abuse 1 CONTRACT LAW: Settlement agreements – Consent judgments – Legal effect of consent judgments – Interpretation of settlement agreements – Breach of payment terms – Materiality of breach – Grace period provisions – Requirement for written notice – Acceleration clauses – Automatic acceleration provisions – Whether minor breach triggers substantial penalty – Whether acceptance of late payment constitutes waiver of rights – Effect of subsequent conduct on established breach – Original versus discounted settlement sum 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunctions – Fortuna injunction – Requirements for injunctive relief – Bona fide dispute – Nature of disputed debt – Alternative remedies – Availability of other enforcement methods – Whether creditor must exhaust alternative remedies – Whether potential damage to commercial reputation constitutes special circumstances – Service requirements – Strict vs substantial compliance – Effect of technical defects in service – Proportionality of consequences – Balance of convenience 1 Civil procedure — Injunction — Fortuna injunction — Winding up — Injunction to restrain petition — Application for injunction by plaintiff to refrain presentation of winding up petition— Whether there was bona fide dispute of alleged debt — Whether it caused irreparable damage to the plaintiff 1 section 351 of the CA 2016 [replacing section 368A of the Companies Act 1965]-Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to seek the remedies sought under section 351 of the CA 2016-Origin of section 351 CA 2016-section 80 of the Australian Trade Practices Act 1974-section 149 of the Australian Securities Industry Act 1980-section 1324 of the Corporations Act 2001-section 368A of the Companies Act 1965-Companies (Amendment) Act 2007, now-statutory injunctive relief for shareholders and members of the public to prevent breaches of the CA 2016 and to overcome the technicalities associated with the Foss and Harbottle rule-Companies (Amendment) Act 2007-Report on Corporate Governance” by the High-Level Finance Committee in February 1999-The Courts have interpreted the statutory injunctive relief provision broadly and have allowed a plaintiff to obtain relief to prevent actual or proposed conduct in contravention of the company’s code-Remedies available under section 351 CA 2016-Under section 351 CA 2016, an injunction order and damages can be granted as these are expressly provided. An order for the disclosure of documents can also be granted-Declaratory reliefs can also be granted-disputes of facts which require the OS to be dismissed with liberty to file a writ action-It is trite law that proceedings may only be begun by Originating Summons where there is unlikely to be any substantial dispute of facts-a party beginning an action by way of an originating summons when he should have begun by a writ should withdraw the originating summons and file a fresh writ action-proceedings under section 351 CA 2016 shall be commenced by way of originating summons as this is mandated by Order 88 Rule 2 of the Rules of Courts 2012 1 Fortuna Injunction – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) – s.466 of the Companies Act 2016 – Failure to pay contractor – Statutory notice based on enforcement order – Whether it is abuse of court process by issuing fresh statutory notice – Withdrawal of winding up petition and issuing of fresh statutory notice – Whether appeal or commencement of arbitration or counterclaims and set-offs raised in adjudication constitute bona fide dispute of debt – Undisputed debt unless and until enforcement order is set aside or stayed – Res judicata – Irreparable damage irrelevant – No chance of success – Commercially solvent – Statutory threshold amount – Combined costs and the principal sum 1 Fortuna Injunction - Sections 465(1)(e) & 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 - Two cumulative limbs - Bona fide disputed debt on substantial grounds - Letter of Assurance - Contractual interpretation - Express terms preserving primary obligations - No novation or transfer of liability - Conditional secondary obligation - Condition precedent unfulfilled - Notice of Assignment required but not issued - Auditor's confirmation as contemporaneous admission of debt - No prior dispute of invoices - Afterthought allegations - Inconsistent with contemporary documents - Abuse of process - Commercial solvency - Cash flow versus balance sheet solvency. 1 Administrators Pendente Lite - Section 19 Probate and Administration Act 1959 - Court-appointed officers subject to court control - Leave requirement to commence proceedings against administrators pendente lite - Locus standi - Beneficiary under disputed will lacking crystallised interest - Minority shareholder unable to restrain administrators from exercising majority shareholding rights - Proper plaintiff rule - Company as separate legal entity - Duplicity of proceedings - pending application to remove Administrators Pendente Lite in Probate Court - Academic questions - Withdrawal of requisition notices rendering reliefs moot - Section 109 Companies Act 2016 - Share transmission prerequisite to membership rights. 1 Derivative Action - Section 347 Companies Act 2016 - Leave to commence proceedings - Good faith requirement - Prima facie case - Best interests of company - Locus standi - 20% shareholder - Procedural compliance - Section 348(2) notice requirement - Fiduciary duties - Breach by sole director - De facto directors - Shareholder ratification - Self-dealing transactions - Diversion of corporate opportunities and assets - Misappropriation of company funds - Competing entities - Documentary evidence - Collateral purpose - Vengeful retribution - Unclean hands - Quantification of loss - Litigation costs - Section 350 legal fees - Frivolous application test 1 Declaratory Relief - Section 384 Companies Act 2016 - Receivers and Managers - Non-justiciable question - Abstract hypothetical ruling - Vague and broad language - Actual legal controversies requirement - Valid tenancy agreement - Landlord's discretion - No privity with agreement - Business operations disputed - Disputed matters inappropriate to determine via affidavit- Originating Summons procedure - Order 28 Rule 8(1) conversion - Multiplicity of proceedings - Duplication of judicial effort - Forum fragmentation - Charged assets not part of premises - Failure to collect assets - Application dismissed - No order as to costs 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Fortuna injunction - Application to restrain filing of winding up petition - Statutory notice of demand based on adjudication decisions - Whether debt disputed on substantial grounds - Whether cross-claim rendered debt disputed - Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of granting injunction 1 Fortuna Injunction - Sections 465(1)(e) & 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 - Two cumulative limbs - Bona fide disputed debt on substantial grounds - Letter of Assurance - Contractual interpretation - Express terms preserving primary obligations - Entire agreement clause - No variation without written amendment - Failure to dispute invoices - Non-response to demand letters in commercial context - Afterthought allegations inconsistent with contemporary documents - Abuse of process - Commercial solvency - Cash flow versus balance sheet solvency. 1 Civil Procedure — Injunction — Fortuna injunction — Application for — Applicant filed application to restrain defendant from presenting winding up petition — Whether judgment debt disputed — Whether the petition has no chance of success — Whether presentation of winding up petition would cause irreparable harm to plaintiff — Whether section 195 Financial Services Act 2013 bars issuance of statutory notice — Whether applicable Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) guidelines a ground to delay payment — Whether applicant commercially solvent — Whether applicant entitled to Erinford injunction — Financial Services Act 2013, ss 47(1), 123(1), 143(2), & 195— Companies Act 2016 s.465(1)(e), & s.466(1)(a) — Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972, r.23. 1 CONTEMPT OF COURT: Non-party liability – Aiding and abetting breach of court orders – Knowledge of court order requirement – Whether a non-party to a court order can be liable for contempt through knowingly aiding and abetting its breach – Whether proof of primary breach is a prerequisite to liability for aiding and abetting – Whether aiding and abetting liability can be established independently of primary actor's guilt – Whether non-party liability extends to those acting under sanction of court-appointed officers 1 COMPANY LAW AND INSOLVENCY: Consent orders and statutory liquidation framework – Survival of consent orders upon winding up – Effect of liquidator appointment on pre-liquidation restrictions – Interaction between private arrangements and statutory regime – Whether consent orders bind court-appointed liquidators exercising statutory functions – Whether statutory framework governing liquidation takes precedence over pre-liquidation consent orders – Whether private contractual arrangements can override pari passu distribution principle – Scope and extent of liquidator's powers under Companies Act 2016 – Whether consent orders restricting asset dispositions survive winding up proceedings 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings and ex parte applications – Leave requirements under Order 52 Rules of Court 2012 – Threshold for granting leave to commence contempt proceedings – Standard of proof at leave stage – Whether material non-disclosure occurred at leave stage – Disclosure obligations regarding parallel proceedings and share buyout orders – Effect of unperformed buyout orders on standing and locus standi – Meaning of "disposition" in context of consent orders – Whether execution of agreements without legal title transfer constitutes completed disposition – Prematurity of committal proceedings where transactions remain inchoate – Availability of alternative remedies as bar to contempt jurisdiction – Whether contempt should be stayed pending determination of related proceedings – Proper use of contempt as remedy of last resort – Whether contempt jurisdiction should be exercised where comprehensive alternative remedies exist in pending litigation 1 Insolvency set-off — Bank’s contractual right of set-off preserved notwithstanding liquidation — Relevant transaction is underlying loan agreement predating winding-up — Not date of set-off — Mutual dealings established where company indebted under loan and bank indebted for account balance — Companies Act 2016, s 526 — Set-off not an undue or fraudulent preference — Pari passu rule subject to statutory exception — Sime Diamond Leasing (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v JB Precision Moulding Industries Sdn Bhd followed. 1 Banking law — Banker–customer relationship — Right to combine and consolidate accounts — Set-off clause operative post-liquidation — Seven-day notice requirement satisfied by contractual deeming provision — Proof of posting sufficient. 1 Company law — Winding-up — Effect of notice — Creditor’s knowledge after debt became due does not bar set-off — Companies Act 2016, s 526(3). 1 Scheme of Arrangement - Section 366 Companies Act 2016 - Sanction application - Opposed ex-parte procedure - Foreign companies jurisdiction - Sufficient connection test - Four-stage test - Statutory compliance - Creditor classification - Fair representation - Pooling mechanism - Debt novation - Inter-conditional schemes - Liquidation alternative comparison - International effectiveness - Foreign representatives declaration - No blot test - Conditions precedent - Interim stay order - Post-sanction restraining order - Inherent jurisdiction - Court-to-Court Protocol Malaysia-Singapore - UNCITRAL Model Law recognition - Cross-border insolvency - Corporate rescue – Preserving majority creditor will and decision 1 Civil procedure - application to convert the originating summons to writ action - Order 28 Rule 8 of the ROC - whether Defendants have shown circumstances and documentary evidence to justify the grant of a conversion - Whether there are fundamental and substantial dispute of facts and complex legal issues that require the calling of witnesses and a full trial 1 Extension of time – Arbitration proceedings – Judicial discretion – Arbitration Act – High Court’s jurisdiction to extend statutory timelines – reasonableness of delay – item 8 of the Schedule in Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Order 3 rule 5 (1) & (2) Rules of the High Court 1980 - 1 Scope of arbitral authority & excess of jurisdiction – procedural fairness in setting aside arbitral awards – mistake by counsel and its impact on procedural compliance – substantive justice vs procedural technicalities – Whether the Respondent will be prejudiced – Whether mistakes are minor and could be excused. 1 Application to set aside the arbitration award - Sections 37(1)(a) (vi) and/or 37(1)(b) (ii) and/or 37(2)(b) (i) and/or 37(2)(b) (ii) of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Claim for compensation for losses and damages. Whether the Defendant is in breach of duty to nominate the buyers to sign the Sale and Purchase Agreements with Plaintiff and to disburse the Grant - Whether rate of 5% award of interest per annum was an appropriate measure of Plaintiff’s loss and damage despite the tendering of expert witness’ opinion – The Arbitrator awarded interest at 5% per annum without giving parties’ notice, without hearing the parties, and without fairly considering the reasonableness of the rate. The Court allow the setting aside of the Award that the Award is in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia where a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred during the Arbitration. 1 filed an Originating Summons-enforcement of a foreign arbitration award-the mandatory requirement under section 38(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005-Compliance with section 38(2) of the AA 2005 is mandatory-The word ‘shall’ in s 38(1) of the AA is, as the word denotes, a mandatory requirement -Section 38(2)(b) of AA 2005 states that an applicant filing an application for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award “shall produce-(a)the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy of the award; and-(b)the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of the agreement.”-I dismiss the OS with costs of RM 20,000 subject to allocatur. For the record that I disallow the OS solely for non-compliance with section 38(2)(b) of AA 2005 and have not considered the merits of other arguments raised before me 1 Section 37 Arbitration Act – Setting Aside Arbitral Award – Whether the Plaintiff successfully established any of the statutory grounds under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), 37(2)(a)(i), or 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 to justify setting aside the costs award. 1 Public Policy Challenge – Whether the costs award conflicted with the public policy of Malaysia, including allegations of fraud, bias, or procedural unfairness. 1 Natural Justice in Arbitration - Natural Justice and Right to Be Heard – Whether the Plaintiff was denied a fair opportunity to present its case on costs, and whether the Tribunal’s conduct breached the rules of natural justice. 1 Tribunal’s Jurisdiction to Award Costs Post-Award – Functus Officio Doctrine – Whether the arbitral tribunal was functus officio after issuing a partial award, and whether it retained jurisdiction to determine and allocate costs. 1 Res Judicata in Arbitration – Abuse of Process – Effect of Res Judicata and Abuse of Process – Whether the Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to re-litigate issues already decided amounted to an abuse of process, justifying the Tribunal’s full costs award. 1 Plaintiff’s Discovery Application - filed in support of the Plaintiff’s (“Olam Global”) Originating Summons herein to set aside the Final Appeal Award issued by the PORAM Appeal Board - whether the Discovery Documents were relevant and necessary – Appeal Board did not arrive at its decision premised on a finding that the Cargo Readiness Declarations were authentic and valid documents - the Appeal Board was alive to Olam Global's allegation of fraud but the majority were not persuaded by the relevancy of the fraud - the question of cargo readiness was immaterial to the findings in the Final Appeal Award - Appeal Board found in favour of AAStar based upon a construction of the Sales Contracts - the Documents Sought were therefore legally irrelevant and unnecessary to determination of the Originating Summons – by way of this discovery application Olan Global was really seeking to reopen the arbitrated dispute on the majority’s finding of a waiver through a backdoor appeal on the merits - Olam Global had not demonstrated that the Discovery Documents were of sufficient cogency and weight to be likely to have influenced the Appeal Board’s conclusion - Olam Global had failed to satisfy one of the conditions of the Ladd v Marshall Requirements - Enclosure 104 was dismissed with costs fixed at RM20,000.00 subject to payment of allocator. 1 company law-Scheme of Arrangement-Pre-packaged Scheme of Arrangment-Section 369 Companies Act 2016-test for Section 369C Companies Act 2016 Sanction-Disclosure to Scheme creditors-the test for classification of creditors-calculation of statutory majority-rights of excluded non-scheme creditors-Malaysia pre-packaged Scheme of Arrangment. 1 1. The Plaintiff by way of this Originating Summons (“OS”) is seeking to set aside a decision of the Magistrate given on 3/8/2020 in a civil suit WA-A72-15-01/2019. 1 2. The provisions of law mentioned in the intitulement of the OS are Order 7, 28,, 5(3) &(4) and 92(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). 1 3. It is pointless to reproduce all the provisions of the Rules mentioned in the intitulement as all are general provisions Suffice if Order 7(2) 1A is reproduced here: 1 2. Forms of originating summons (O. 7 r. 2) 1 (1A) Every originating summons shall state in its intitulement any provision of these Rules and any provision of any written law under which the Court is being moved. 1 8. In the upshot the Court refuses to exercise its revisionary powers as there are no reason to do so and thereby dismisses the OS with a cost of RM2,000. 1 This is an application by the plaintiff to remove a private caveat lodged by the defendant over a piece of land in Johor Bahru. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had no caveatable interest as the claim was purely monetary. The court held that the undertakings in the agreement and the plaintiff’s Constitution created equitable obligations amounting to a constructive trust in favour of DCS Trading. Serious questions merited trial and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat. The plaintiff’s application was dismissed. 1 The Plaintiff's applied under Section 327 National Land Code to remove private caveat lodged by Defendant over the property. Plaintiff's application was allowed with cost RM3,000.00. 1 The Appellant's conduct represented a sustained and deliberate assault on the administration of justice. His repeated filings demonstrate a complete disregard for this Court's authority and an attempt to render the Vexatious Litigant Order meaningless. The authorities establish that custodial sentences are appropriate for serious breaches of court orders, particularly where there is no remorse and the contempt is persistent in nature. Having regard to all the circumstances and the authorities cited above, this Court found that a custodial sentence is both necessary and appropriate to reflect the gravity of the contempt and to deter similar conduct. 1 Scope of power of a Commissioner of Buildings – Strata Management Act 2013 – Verification of names of newly elected management committee members – Whether Commissioner of Buildings has power to require statutory declarations to be filed for verification purposes – Paragraph 7(8) of Second Schedule, Strata Management Act 2013 – Only certified true copies of the resolutions passed at the general meeting and certified true copies of the minutes of general meeting are required for verification purposes – Whether Commissioner of Buildings has power to issue letter of recognition of committee members – Signatories of management corporation’s bank account – Whether bank may rely on letter of recognition from Commissioner of Buildings to decline signatories of management corporation and freeze bank account – Paragraph 7(5) of the Second Schedule – Minutes of meeting signed by the chairman of the meeting or the secretary are admissible as prima facie evidence without further proof – Circular issued by Commissioner of Buildings to impose additional requirements are ultra vires and void 1 This Court’s assessment [12] This Court was unable to accept the Defendant’s reasons to convert the OS into a writ action because the factual matrix is not disputed. The Tenancy Agreement and the clauses contained therein, the fact that the Defendant uses POS System and LMS to record transactions of the Lounge, and also that the Defendant had failed to provide the documents sought by the Plaintiff. 1 [13] Thus, this matter is most suitable to resolve by way of OS. The Court of Appeal had ruled in NVJ Menon v The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd [2002] 2 MLRA 510; [2004] 3 MLJ 38; [2004] 3 CLJ 96; [2004] 4 AMR 164 that witnesses’ view or impressions of the contract are irrelevant because the construction of it is a question of law to be determined by the court, not by oral testimonies of witnesses. 1 [14] This Court did not agree to the Defendant’s contention the relief of producing the accounts cannot be done via this OS pursuant to Order 43 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC). The Defendant relied on the usage of the word ‘writ’ in Order 43 Rule 1 RoC where a writ is endorsed with a claim for an account. However, this Court understood that to be an acknowledgment that the relief for account may be granted by way of summarily without requiring a trial – see Ekar Lega Sdn Bhd v Central Spectrum (M) Sdn Bhd [2023] CLJU 2292 and also Yeoh Gaik Tin @ Tao Yong v Khaw Hock Chye & Anor [2019] CLJU 1748. 1 [15] After having scrutinized the Defendant’s argument that there were substantial dispute material facts in its Defence and Counterclaim, this Court found that the numerous allegations in the Defendant’s affidavits are not relevant to the facts in issue of this OS. See GT-Max Food & Beverages Sdn Bhd v Sawit Raya Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] MLJU 2281; Ultra Racing (M) Sdn Bhd v Hai Soon Leong Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1426. 1 [16] The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff’s averments contradicted those in its affidavit in High Court Suit No. BA-22NCvC-299-07/2024 (Suit 299) where the Plaintiff stated that there was no breach of the Tenancy Agreement. However, that claim was taken out of context. The Plaintiff had stated that there were “No breaches haven been alleged in respect of lounges and storage outlets and no injunction can conceivably be sought in respect of those tenancies.” This was in answer to the Defendant’s application for an injunction which had been since set aside, and irrelevant to the fact in issue of this OS to interpret the Tenancy Agreement to determine the Plaintiff’s contractual rights/the Defendant’s contractual obligations. 1 [17] Therefore, the Defendant’s other claim on the issues of using the Plaintiff’s POS system and the difficulties and practices thereto were also not relevant to the determination of this OS. This Court is to make a finding on the contractual rights of the parties borne out of the Tenancy Agreement regardless of the difficulties, teething issues or the satisfaction of using the Plaintiff’s POS system. 1 [18] The third purported disputed fact that the Defendant submitted that entailed this OS to be converted into a writ action was the claim that this OS was not filed bona fide. The Defendant’s claimed that this OS is a fishing expedition for documents for other suits, which this Court considered upon the submissions by learned counsels of the parties. This Court found that the discovery sought in those other suits was in relation to the sales transactions relating to the food and beverage outlets which are the subject matter of those said suit. That is distinct from the determination of the construction of the Tenancy Agreement which is the subject matter of this OS. The Defendant had failed to show that such allegation of bad faith was with basis so it could not frustrate this OS. 1 [19] Lastly, the Defendant contended that this OS was to circumvent the trial for Suit 299. This Court found the argument without merit as th 1 Ini adalah permohonan Pemohon untuk satu deklarasi bahawa penamaan Mageswaran A/L Subramaniam sebagai penerima 100% caruman mendiang Saraswathy A/P Muniandi dari Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja adalah tidak sah. Oleh itu, Responden Kedua tidak berhak menerima caruman tersebut. Permohonan ditolak dengan tiada perintah untuk kos. 1 Conclusion [47] Based on the analysis above, this Court makes the following findings: (a) s38C of the COVID-19 Act does not apply to the Plaintiffs' SPA dated 25.11.2021 by virtue of s38C(4); 1 (b) The KPKT approval dated 30.9.2022, to the extent it purports to grant relief to SPAs executed after 31.05.2021, is ultra vires and without legal effect; 1 (c) The KPKT’s approval to exempt 304 days for the calculation of delivery of vacant possession of the parcels and common facilities of the development does not apply to the Plaintiffs’ SPA; 1 (d) Even if s38C COVID-Act applied, only 37 days (25.11.2021 to 31.12.2021) could be excluded, not the full 304 days; 1 (e) The original contractual delivery date of 24.11.2025 for vacant possession of the parcel remains valid and binding. 1 [48] 'A declaration can be used to ascertain and determine the legal rights of parties or to determine a point of law' as stated in the case of Brett Andrew Macnamara v Kam Lee Kuan [2008] 2 MLJ 450 at p 459. For that, this Court hereby declares that: (a) The COVID-19 extension of time of 304 days approved by KPKT vide its letter dated 30.9.2022 does not apply to the SPA dated 25.11.2021 between the Plaintiffs and Defendants by virtue of s38C(4) of the Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Amendment) Act 2022; 1 (b) The date for delivery of vacant possession of Parcel No. B-38-02 and completion of common facilities by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiffs shall be 24.11.2025, being 48 months from the date of the sale and purchase agreement dated 25.11.2021; 1 (c) The 2nd Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ OS (Enclosure 12) is allowed. The 2nd Defendant is struck out as a party to this OS proceedings; 1 (d) The 1st Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs' costs of RM60,000, subject to allocator, for this OS. The Plaintiff is to pay the 2nd Defendant RM10,000 for Enclosure 12, subject to allocator. 1 2. The Plaintiffs are registered owners of a residence situated on Lot 29976, Mukim Petaling, Daerah Petaling, Kuala Lumpur. This plot of land was originally held under land grants having tenure in perpetuity. 1 3. This land grants were surrendered to the Land Office for purposes of sub divisions for the development of a housing project undertaken by Petaling Garden Co. Sdn Bhd. Upon sub division and new titles being issued, the tenure in perpetuity was changed to a 99 years lease. 1 Civil Procedure — Interpleader — Stakeholder — Competing claims to stakeholder fund — Solicitor holding purchase monies and title documents — Whether plaintiff entitled to be discharged from liability — Order 17 r 1 and r 3 Rules of Court 2012 — Schedule, para 5 Court of Judicature Act 1964 Contract — Sale and purchase of land — Breach — Failure to pay balance purchase price — Whether purchaser entitled to terminate agreement — Whether right of termination reserved to vendor — Contracts Act 1950 s 56 Land Law — Sale of land — Delivery of vacant possession prior to full payment — Redemption of charge — Custody of original title and security documents — Whether security documents to be retained pending completion Equity — Stakeholder funds — Beneficial ownership — Whether funds held for benefit of vendor — Estoppel — Whether purchaser precluded from reclaiming stakeholder sum — Unjust enrichment — Equitable estoppel Legal Profession — Solicitors — Duty as stakeholder — Proper discharge of stakeholder’s obligations — Right to interplead — Neutrality of stakeholder Statutory Interpretation — Effect of statutory seizure and return of funds — Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 — Whether seizure affects beneficial ownership 1 This is an application by the plaintiff to remove a private caveat lodged by the defendant over a property in Setapak, Kuala Lumpur. The defendant claimed a caveatable interest based on a sale and purchase agreement and alleged full payment of the purchase price. The Court found that the defendant failed to produce Form 19B, prove a concluded and enforceable contract or take timely action for specific performance. Applying the Luggage Distributors three-stage test, the Court held that no caveatable interest or serious question arose. The caveat was ordered removed with costs. 1 By way of the Originating Summons [Enclosure 1], the plaintiff seeks declarations that some clauses in the deceased's Last Will and Testament should be amended and substituted in accordance with the relevant parties’ consent order, said to have been recorded before Her Ladyship Justice Hue Siew Kheng. In challenging the Consent Order, the defendant claims that the plaintiff and the plaintiff‘s brother, Woo Wei Kwang, had not reached consensus ad idem on the issues addressed in the purported Consent Order. 1 In light of the parties' earlier agreement in this regard, as reflected in the Consent Order, this Court will honour their agreement. To this end, the Court does not doubt that the proceedings conducted earlier before Justice Hue Siew Kheng, based on a consent order before Her Ladyship, are genuine. This would mean that the Consent Order is enforceable. 1 By way of the Originating Summons [Enclosure 1], the plaintiff seeks declarations that, amongst others, the defendants should pay pensions and/or adjust pensions for the plaintiff and 3210 others in accordance with the Pensions Regulations 1982, and that the defendants' actions in paying pensions that are less than what the plaintiff and 3210 others should have received are wrongful and violate Article 147 of the Federal Constitution. Having perused the evidence before the court, the court finds that the adjustment of pensions for the plaintiff has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Regulations 1982, and there is therefore no shortfall in the pension amount that the plaintiff is receiving. In light of the the findings, the court is constrained to dismiss the Originating Summons [Enclosure 1]. 1 Mediation session conducted by judicial commissioner – Broad terms of settlement recorded – Parties could not agree on terms of draft “Consent Judgment” – Case management held before judicial commissioner – Judicial commissioner reviewed audio-video recording of mediation session and decided that the parties have agreed on the Defendants' version of the draft Consent Judgment – Defendants extracted sealed Consent Judgment based on draft approved by the court – Plaintiffs filed Originating Summons filed at High Court to set aside the Consent Judgment – Different grounds from typical cases of setting aside of consent orders: fraud, mistake, total failure of consideration, or other disputes between parties to the consent order – Atypical reason in seeking the setting aside due to a decision made by the judicial commissioner – In grounds for the Plaintiffs’ application, Plaintiffs alleged that the judicial commissioner committed error – Coordinate jurisdiction – A High Court judicial commissioner has no power to review the decision of another judicial commissioner – Plaintiffs ought to have filed appeal to the Court of Appeal instead of a new action at the High Court – Plaintiffs’ action to be struck out 1 The plaintiff seeks the transfer of Civil Suit No. WA-A52-35-02/2025, filed in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court, to the Kuala Lumpur High Court and for the case to be heard at the High Court. The plaintiff claims that the damages exceed the RM1,000,000.00 jurisdictional limit of the Sessions Court, thus requiring the transfer application. The defendants, however, argue that the plaintiff intentionally quantified the amount of general, exemplary and aggravated damages in excess of RM1,000,000.00 when filing amendments to the Writ and Statement of Claim at the Sessions Court in order to transfer the matter to the High Court. The Court finds that if it granted this transfer application to the High Court, the Court would accept the fact that it is perfectly alright and legally acceptable for parties in an action to quantify damages figures even though Order 18 rule 12(1A) of the Rules of Court 2012 explicitly says that no party shall quantify any claim or counterclaim for general damages. 1 Electricity supply for Common Area in subdivided strata buildings – Joint Management Body refused to open new accounts with Tenaga Nasional Berhad for Common Area – Electricity consumption by JMB continued under TNB account in the name of the developer – Definition of “consumer” under Electricity Supply Act 1990 – Whether consumer is actually the JMB and not the developer – TNB refused to allow the developer to close the electricity accounts due to refusal by JMB to sign the necessary forms – TNB failed to disconnect electricity of defaulting accounts – Whether attempts by developer to close accounts amounted to notice of termination of electricity supply contracts – Whether unconscionable for TNB to continue to bill the developer – Whether the Management Corporation liable for outstanding electricity charges incurred by its predecessor, i.e the JMB , by operation of law under ss.27 & 28 Strata Management Act 2013 1 No provision in the Societies Act 1966 or any other law for a society to be prosecuted in its own name – S.51 Societies Act 1966 – Every office-bearer deemed to be guilty of offence committed by or in the name of the society – Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia is a society registered under S.7 Societies Act 1966 – Defined as a political party – No separate legal entity from its members – Power to issue Freezing Order under s.44 Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) – Power to issue Seizure Order – Permissible under s.51(2) Societies Act for office-bearer to be charged for offence committed by the society – President of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia charged under AMLA in his capacity as a president of the society – Compliance with s.52A AMLA – Order 17 Rules of Court 2012 – Interpleader Application filed by Plaintiff bank for directions and relief – Interpleader not to be heard as a civil suit or judicial review filed by the defendants – Power to determine disputes summarily in an interpleader application is applicable if and only if no existing proceedings between the claimants 1 [1] The OS is an application to extend two (2) private caveats lodged on two (2) plots of land until the full and final disposal of Civil Suit No.: WA-22NCVC-268-04/2024 (Suit 268). 1 [2] This Court is inclined to the Applicant’s contention and is of the considered view, that the Applicant has a caveatable interest in the Properties, being that the OS is to prevent the Properties from being sold to a third party while seeking specific performance in Suit 268. 1 [3] Therefore, this Court finds that the caveat should be maintained until the disposal of Suit 268. Furthermore, there are triable issues to be determined in regards as to whether there was a termination or not pertaining to the ATP. 1 [4] Based on the above reasons, this Court allowed the OS with costs. 1 This is a discovery application. The defendant argues, in its objection, that the plaintiff made its discovery application under the wrong procedure under the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC"). According to the defendant, in order to make an application under Order 24 rule 7 of the ROC, the plaintiff must first make an application under Order 24 rule 3 of the ROC, which is the preceding application for general discovery. The plaintiff failed to do so since it relied only on Order 24 rule 7. The Court finds that an order under this rule cannot be made for any cause or matter before an order under Order 24 rule 3 of the ROC has first been obtained against that party. As such, the plaintiff's application should be dismissed in limine for failing to comply with a mandatory precondition. 1 In the Originating Summons [Enclosure 1], the plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file its Notice of Appeal in accordance with Order 3 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Court finds no merit in the plaintiff’s application despite the delay of only 13 days. The plaintiff's claim that it needed to examine 15,000 documents as the main reason for the delay is unjustifiable. In relation to the mistake of the plaintiff's solicitors, the Court also finds that this is insufficient grounds for extending the deadline. 1 Perintah jualan harta pusaka; Seksyen 60(3) Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959; Kuasa dan tanggungjawab fidusiari pentadbir harta pusaka; Peraturan majoriti waris dalam pentadbiran estet; majority rule; Bantahan waris terhadap cadangan penjualan; Laporan penilaian hartanah; ketiadaan laporan penilaian terkini; Perjanjian Jual Beli yang sah; Harga pasaran; beban pembuktian nilai semasa; Penyempurnaan pentadbiran; pembahagian estet si mati; Dakwaan tidak bermerit dan tidak munasabah 1 [1] This is a dispute regarding the validity of resignations and/or withdrawals of former members of the Executive Committee ("EXCO") of the Malaysia Cricket Association ("MCA"). It has resulted in the Originating Summons [Enclosure 1] being filed. 1 [2] In the meantime, the plaintiff is seeking an interim interlocutory injunction through Enclosure 2 pending the disposal of Enclosure 1. However, while Enclosure 2 is being dealt with, the plaintiff demands an ad interim injunction. 1 [3] As regards Enclosure 2, the plaintiff seeks to restrain the first defendant from holding himself out as the President and/or affiliate committee members of the MCA, to restrain the second defendant from holding himself out as the Deputy President and/or affiliate committee member of the MCA, to prevent the third defendant from holding himself out as the Honorary Treasurer and/or affiliated committee member as well as to restrain the fourth and fifth defendants from holding themselves out as the affiliates committee members of the MCA. 1 [4] The court, in this regard, is unable to find any evidence that the defendants played a role that would warrant an injunction. To this end, the Court does not find any evidence of the defendants holding themselves out as the plaintiff suggested. As a result, the plaintiff does not make out a sufficient case for this injunction. 1 [5] In view of the same, Enclosure 2 is therefore dismissed with costs of RM2,000.00 to each defendant, subject to allocatur. 1 [1] In this Originating Summons, the Plaintiff is seeking leave for an extension of time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur Magistrates Court in Civil Suit No.: WA-A72NCvC-3176-08/2022 (Civil Suit) dated 30.08.2023. 1 [2] In this Originating Summons, there was a delay of at least nine (9) months. The reason for the delay was that Ms. Keerthana had wrongly filed the application for an extension of time at the Magistrates Court. Ms. Keerthana had also failed to file the application for extension at the High Court. 1 [3] This Court finds that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and the mistake of a lawyer handling the matter is not a sufficient ground for granting leave. Therefore, this Originating Summons is dismissed with costs. 1 The plaintiff held a valid three-year tenancy from the Federal Land Commissioner for 2.9123 hectares at RM61,200 monthly rent. Unidentified defendants had unlawfully constructed structures on the land despite notices to vacate. The court ruled the defendants were trespassers without legal rights, ordering summary possession of the land under O 89 Rules of Court 2012 and thereby rejected adverse possession claims under the National Land Code 1965. 1 Trespass - summary possession under Order 89 ROC 2012 - squatters, adverse possession - National Land Code - vacant possession 1 application for discovery of certain documents relating to a construction project adjacent to the Plaintiff’s residence. Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012. Defendant resists the application on two grounds: (a) The jurisdictional ground: that the Plaintiff’s originating summons is defective and does not properly confer jurisdiction on the Court under Order 7 rule 2(1A) ROC. (b) The substantive ground: that the Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Order 24 rule 7A ROC, and that the application amounts to an impermissible fishing expedition. 1 Issues that arise for determination are: (a) Whether the Plaintiff’s originating summons is fatally defective for failure to properly cite provisions in the intitulement (Order 7 rule 2(1A) ROC). (b) Whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold under Order 24 rule 7A ROC for discovery, having regard to the nature and purpose of the documents sought. 1 Injunction – plaintiff as the elected President of the Association which is entitled to manage the Temple is entitled to a mandatory injunction for vacant possession thereof with the view to manage the same 1 Plaintiff employer enforced settlement agreements against the defendant, former employee, who received RM1,226,988.00 but later filed new legal proceedings challenging his termination. 1 Court held: (1) Settlement Agreement and Memorandum formed single transaction with valid consideration; (2) defendant failed to prove duress, undue influence, or fraud; (3) agreements were lawful and didn't violate whistleblower protections or stifle prosecution; (4) defendant breached his waiver of "all claims" by filing subsequent actions. Plaintiff awarded declarations, permanent injunction, damages, and costs. 1 Settlement agreements - breach of contract – consideration - duress - undue influence - fraud - public policy - Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 - employment dispute 1 This case concerns an application to remove private caveats lodged over properties following a Syariah Court order declaring the wife entitled to a 1/10 share as harta sepencarian. The High Court holds that a final Syariah Court order creates a registrable proprietary interest under ss 417 and 421A NLC, not merely a monetary entitlement. Applying the Luggage Distributors, the Court found the caveatable interest established and the balance of convenience favouring the wife, given the husband's pattern of attempting unilateral disposals. 1 Private caveat; harta sepencarian; caveatable interest; Syariah Court order; National Land Code 1965; s 323(1)(a) NLC 1 [1] The Plaintiff files an application for committal against the 3rd Defendant (D3) (Enclosure 165) and the 1st Defendant (D1) also files the same against the 2nd Defendant (D2) and D3 (Enclosure 169) upon obtaining the order for leave to commence committal proceedings granted by this Court on 17.03.2025. Thereafter, D2 and D3 applied to set aside the order that granted leave for the Plaintiff (Enclosure 174) and D1 (Enclosure 176). 1 [2] Article 126 of the Federal Constitution provides the power of this Court to deal with punishment on contempt- “Power to punish for contempt 126. The Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court shall have power to punish any contempt of itself.”. This provision is further reiterated in section 13 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91). 1 [3] For these reasons, Enclosure 174 and 176 are dismissed and Enclosure 165 and Enclosure 169 are allowed with costs. This Court therefore, passed the sentence as recorded and ordered accordingly. 1 [4] Subsequent to the sentencing orders, learned counsels for D2 and D3 made an oral application under Order 52 R7 of the ROC to stay the imprisonment order. The application was allowed by this Court subject to compliance of the terms. 1 A mother claimed her bankrupt son held his property share on trust for her, seeking all sale proceeds (RM1,100,000). The property was jointly owned for 40 years. After the son's bankruptcy (2013-2024) and property sale (2023), the Director General of Insolvency claimed his share (RM400,298.33) for creditors owed RM537,656.34. The High Court dismissed the claim. The mother failed to prove the trust—only late statutory declarations existed after the DGI's claim, with no trust deed or secondary evidence. The timing showed bad faith. The son's interest vested in the DGI upon bankruptcy under s 8(1)(b) Insolvency Act 1967. Discharge doesn't divest vested property. The court found both parties acted with improper motives to defeat creditor claims. Accepting such claims would undermine land registration and bankruptcy systems. 1 Trust; Presumption of advancement; Declaratory relief; Vesting of property; Director General of Insolvency; Insolvency Act 1967; National Land Code 1965; Specific Relief Act 1950 1 The present case exemplifies that danger. The Defendant’s conduct—marked by the persistent pursuit of claims already decided, and the proliferation of collateral proceedings—has significantly burdened the Plaintiffs and the judicial process. It is precisely to forestall such misuse that the law on vexatious litigants exists. While the Federal Constitution guarantees liberty and equality under Articles 5 and 8 respectively, these rights are to be exercised in accordance with the law. The Constitution does not confer an unlimited right of access to justice; rather, such access must be tempered by legal boundaries and respect for final judicial determinations. Courts are empowered to act when access to justice is transformed into a tool for harassment and oppression. 1 1. The Plaintiff applied by way of this Originating Summons (OS) to obtain his medical records from the 2 Defendants. 1 2. The provision of law relied by the Plaintiff amongst others is Regulation 44 of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services (Private Hospitals and other Private healthcare Facilities Regulation 2006 (“health care Regulation”) which stipulates: 1 (1) A patient's medical record is the property of a private healthcare facility or service. 1 (2) No patient's medical record shall be taken out from the private healthcare facility or service except under a court order and when taken out from the private healthcare facility or service under a court order, a copy of the records shall be retained by the private healthcare facility or service and the original records shall be returned to the private healthcare facility or service at the end of the proceedings for which the records were directed to be procured. 1 (3) The licensee or person in charge of the private healthcare facility or service shall ensure that for each admission, each patient's medical record shall have the information as specified in the Sixth Schedule. 1 (4) All entries in a patient's medical record shall be- (a) dated and authenticated by the person who gave the order, provided the care or performed the observation, examination, assessment, treatment or other service to which the entry pertains; and 1 (b) legibly written in ink, typewritten or recorded on a computer terminal which is designed to receive such information and if recorded and stored in a computer, it may be stored on magnetic tapes, discs or other devices suited to the storage of data. 1 (5) All originals or copies of any patient's medical reports received from any other healthcare facility or service shall be filed in the patient's medical record in the private healthcare facility or service. 1 (6) Any person who contravenes subregulation (3), (4) or (5) commits an offence. 1 9. For the above reasons the Court dismisses the OS with a cost of RM3,000. 1 Civil Procedure — Originating summons — Co-ownership of immovable property — Breakdown of relationship between co-owners — Power of court to order sale — Whether just and equitable to terminate co-ownership — Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 25 and Sch, para 3 — Rules of Court 2012, O 31 r 1 1 Land Law — Joint ownership — Undivided half-shares — Properties acquired for partnership purposes — Dissolution of partnership — Death of co-owner — Estate represented by executrix — Impasse between co-owners — Whether sale should be ordered in lieu of partition 1 Land Law — Sale of land — Court-ordered sale — Public auction — Competing private valuations — Absence of jointly appointed valuer — Market value best determined by open auction — Appointment of independent valuer to fix reserve price 1 Equity — Co-ownership — Duties between co-owners — Unauthorised renovation works — Alteration of jointly owned property without consent — Breach of mutual trust — Whether reinstatement appropriate remedy 1 Remedies — Reinstatement — Structural alterations — Practical difficulty of supervision — Whether damages or costs sufficient compensation — Court’s discretion 1 Costs — Conduct of party — Unauthorised renovation — Whether conduct material to exercise of discretion — Costs awarded against plaintiff 1 Probate and Administration — Removal of administrator — Letters of administration granted to surviving spouse — Alleged failure to distribute remaining assets — Delay of nearly ten years — Whether sufficient cause for revocation — Objective test — Paramount consideration being proper administration of estate — Majority of beneficiaries supporting administrator — Personal grievances not sufficient — Whether plaintiff fit to replace administrator — Section 34 Probate and Administration Act 1959 1 Civil Procedure — Originating summons — Application to revoke letters of administration — Burden of proof on applicant — Allegations of misconduct and exclusion — Evidentiary threshold not met — Delay explained by stamp duty and beneficiary consensus — Informal accounting — Whether breach of fiduciary duty established 1 Fiduciary Duties — Administrator of estate — Duty to act in best interests of all beneficiaries — Delay in sale of immovable property — Sentimental value and family use — Whether failure to distribute constitutes misconduct — Whether failure to produce formal accounts fatal — Judicial reluctance to interfere absent compelling cause 1 Order 89 Rules of Court 2012 applicable against occupiers who had received compensation under Land Acquisition Act 1960 and remaining in the subject land without licence or consent – Order 89 contains distinct rules applicable specifically for the eviction of unlawful occupiers of land – Not restricted to only the eviction of squatters who entered land illegally – Summary procedure under Order 89 governed by same principles as under Order 14 – Plaintiff needs to show “interest in the land”, either as registered proprietor, lessee or other registrable interest under National Land Code 1965 – Dispute about quantum of compensation to be decided by Land Reference Court – Form K issued to take possession of the land – Land alienated to the Plaintiff – Rights to possession of land – No triable issue to resist Order 89 summary procedure – Order 89 rule 6(3) empowers court to fix date of giving of possession in Form 195 – Discretion of the court to give occupiers sufficient time to vacate the land 1 Orang Asli are beneficiaries of a trust – Setting aside of ex-parte orders – Trustee obtained ex-parte order to sell trust properties – Beneficiaries aggrieved by terms of ex-parte order – Proposed sale of trust properties below market value – Trustee agreed to sham scheme for “upgrade and renovation costs” of RM7.6 million to be paid to the property agent appointed by the trust – Whether court has jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte order which is prejudicial to the beneficiaries – Order 32 rule 6 Rules of Court 2012 applicable to all ex-parte orders – Order 42 rule 13 is inapplicable as the trustee failed to send the ex-parte order to the beneficiaries – Had it been an inter-parte order, setting aside would also be justified on ground of fraud – Fraudulent intention proven based on undisputed documents signed by the trustee to its sale agent – Trustee was court-appointed – Court has the power to direct sale to be held by public auction to ensure transparency and best price is obtained 1 2. The Plaintiffs are holders of individual title of 11635, Lot 29280, Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Lumpur. This plot of land was originally held under land grants having tenure in perpetuity. 1 3. This land grants were surrendered to the Land Office for purposes of sub divisions for the development of a housing project undertaken by Taman Bukit Maluri Sdn Bhd for the Bukit Maluri. Upon sub- division and new titles being issued, the tenure in perpetuity was changed to a 99 years lease. 1 S.145 National Land Code 1965 – Plaintiff and her late sister are co-proprietors of a shophouse – Plaintiff paid difference between purchase price and bank loan – Late sister of the Plaintiff Loan repaid bank loan by using rentals from the upper floors of shophouse – The late sister occupied the ground floor for her own business without paying any rent to the Plaintiff – Defendant is brother-in-law of Plaintiff and administrator of Estate of the Plaintiff’s late sister – Defendant pleaded resulting trust and alternatively constructive trust in favour of the Plaintiff’s sister – No evidence of trust arising from the facts of the case – s.343 National Land Code 1965 is applicable that Plaintiff and her late sister hold half share each as co-proprietors of the shophouse – Plaintiff has suffered losses from not receiving anything from the shophouse while the late sister and her husband have benefitted from the shophouse from occupying and collecting rentals – Defendant ignored the Plaintiff’s requests for information about rentals collected and tenancies agreement regarding the shophouse – Fair and equitable case to invoke S.145 National Land Code 1965 to order termination of co-proprietorship and sale of the shophouse 1 [1] The Applicant was employed by the Ministry of Health (MOH), Government of Malaysia as a Medical Officer from 01.08.1991 and contributed to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF). 1 [2] Thereafter, the Applicant was offered the post of Associate Professor by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and in accordance with Pekeliling Perkhidmatan No. 2/1980 (PP 2/1980) applied for pelepasan dengan izin from the Government of Malaysia. Upon obtaining the pelepasan dengan izin, the Applicant joined UPM from 07.06.2005 until his retirement on 03.04.2024. 1 [3] This Court finds that the central issue is the number of years that the Applicant is entitled, under the pension scheme, of his service. 1 [4] This Court also agreed with the contention of the Applicant that the letters dated 24.12.2010 and 09.07.2012 were written on behalf of the Director General of JPA and the Applicant has acted upon it. Therefore, these letters cannot now be disregarded or revoked by the Respondents. Based on the above deliberations, this Court allows the Applicant’s claim in prayers 1(a), 2, 3, 4, and 5. 1 [1] Ini merupakan permohonan taksiran atas gantirugi yang diberikan kepada Responden (Lampiran 36) setelah tuntutan Pemohon-Pemohon dalam Saman Pemula (Lampiran 1) ditolak dengan kos oleh Mahkamah pada 5.9.2024. 1 [2] Pentaksiran ganti rugi diperuntukkan menurut Aturan 37, Kaedah (1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012). 1 [3] Mahkamah ini membenarkan Lampiran 36 menurut Aturan 37 Kaedah 1 KKM 2012 seperti berikut, iaitu gantirugi khas sebanyak RM 543,076.00 untuk fi guaman, idling cost sebanyak RM 35,480.00, RM 2,835.00 dan RM 3,132.00 kesemuanya berjumlah RM 584,523.00, gantirugi am, teruk dan teladan sebanyak RM 50,000.00 atas setiap Pemohon-Pemohon. Faedah 5% atas jumlah taksiran dari tarikh perintah ini hingga penyelesaian penuh. Tiada perintah atas kos. 1 Permohonan Defendan Pertama di Kertas Mahkamah 29 untuk membatalkan Saman Pemula di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 (a), (b) dan (d), Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012. 1 Conclusion [43] The episodes that had transpired leading up to this litigation revealed a breakdown in internal communication and collective decision-making within the Society. It showed that decisions and actions were not made with the Society’s best interests in the forefront, although, in the concerned individual’s respective minds, the words exchanged and actions taken were sworn to be for the benefit of the Society. Yet procedural adherence - the very essence of lawful governance - was compromised. Sections of the Society’s constitution was cited to support their respective arguments for their actions, but the Society’s Constitution must be read, understood and applied holistically, to the intention and spirit of the provisions. 1 [44] Ultimately, when an organisation acts beyond its constitutional boundaries, it is incumbent upon the Court to intervene - not to manage its affairs, but to uphold the rule of law and ensure that decisions are made according to the constitutionally prescribed process. Where the internal organs of an organisation acted beyond the scope of their constitutional authority, it falls to the Court, as guardian of legality and due process, to administer justice. See A Ravindran a/l Aruchunan v Nagappan a/l Athiyan Chetty [2001] 5 MLJ 699. 1 [45] Accordingly, the Society’s OS is dismissed. The Defendant remains the duly elected Honorary Secretary until the next AGM, at which members may determine otherwise in accordance with the Society’s constitution. In consideration of costs, this Court took into account all aggravating and mitigating factors including the conduct of the EXCO and the Defendant. 1 This case concerns the plaintiff’s application for declarations and orders regarding his identity and religious status in the National Registration Department’s records. The court allowed the plaintiff’s prayer for a declaration that he did not submit any application to change his name in the National Registration Department’s records. However, the court dismissed the prayers seeking the deletion of the name “Farhan Menon Abdullah” from birth records and the declaration that the plaintiff is not a Muslim. These matters involved statutory duties, jurisdictional limitations and the rights of third parties. The court applied principles on statutory presumptions of regularity in official acts, the evidential standard for affidavit disputes and the jurisdiction of Civil and Syari’ah Courts in religious status declarations. 1 Tuntutan pelaksanaan kontrak perjanjian jual beli harta tanah - pembayaran penuh melalui suatu perjanjian kontra - pelaksanaan kontrak dibenarkan dan pematuhan terma-terma yang dipersetujui di dalam perjanjian jual beli harta tanah dan perjanjian kontra. 1 This Court’s Orders [39] Based on this Court’s conclusions, this Court orders that (i) The Private Caveat lodged by the Defendant vide Presentation No. PDB23/2025 on the land held under H.S.(D) 90422, PT 338 in Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur be forthwith removed and the Land Registrar do all that is necessary to ensure such removal within seven (7) days of written notification of the order herein to the Land Registrar of Kuala Lumpur 1 (ii) The Defendant pay damages to the Plaintiff in terms of its legal costs, subject to taxation 1 (iii) Costs of RM20,000 awarded to the Plaintiff subject to allocator, to be paid forthwith. 1 1. The Defendant applied to this Court to convert the Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiff into a Writ by virtue of Order 28 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). 1 2. Order 28 rule 8 of the Rules provides as follows: 1 8. Continuation of proceedings as if cause or matter begun by writ (O. 28 r. 8) 1 (1) Where, in the case of a cause or matter begun by originating summons, it appears to the Court at any stage of the proceedings that the proceedings should for any reason be continued as if the cause or matter had been begun by writ, it may order the proceedings to continue as if the cause or matter had been so begun and may, in particular, order that pleadings shall be delivered or that any affidavits shall stand as pleadings, with or without liberty to any of the parties to add thereto or to apply for particulars thereof. 1 15. In the upshot the Court dismissed the Defendant’s application to convert the OS to a Writ with a cost of RM3,000. 1 This is an application for a declaration that the last will and testament executed by one George Stephen Gomez, a Portugal Permanent Resident, is valid and enforceable in Malaysia. Court dismissed this Originating Summons with no order as to costs. 1 Permohonan satu deklarasi bahawa Plaintif adalah pembeli yang sah petak No. 11-2 (Runcit) No.2 Tingkat dan No. 12-2 (Runcit) No.2 Tingkat Cantoment Exchange di Kompleks Kantonmen Prima, No. 698, Jalan Ipoh Batu 4 1/2, 51200 Kuala Lumpur - Tuntutan ditolak. 1 1.The Plaintiff applied by way of this Originating Summons (“OS”) under section 327(1) of the National Land Code to remove the private caveat lodged by the Defendant on a land held under a Grant 75580, Lot 58570 Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (“the property”). 1 2.Section 327(1) of the National Land Code provides that: 1 (1)Any person or body aggrieved by the existence of a private caveat may at any time apply to the Court for an order for its removal, and the Court (acting, if the circumstances so require, ex parte) may make such order on the application as it may think just. 1 14.In the upshot the Court thought it fit to dismiss the OS with a cost of RM3,000 rather than convert it into a Writ. 1 In the Re-Re-Amended Originating Summons (Ex Parte) - Sub-s 58(1) and ss 63 and 64 of the Mental Health Act 2001 [Act 615] - 1 2. The Plaintiffs are registered owners of a residence situated on a plot of land that was originally held under land grants having tenure in perpetuity. 1 3. This land grants were surrendered to the Land Office for purposes of sub divisions for the development of a housing project. Upon sub-division and new titles being issued, the tenure in perpetuity was changed to a 99 years lease. 1 22. In the upshot the Court dismissed the OS with no order as to cost. 1 2. The Plaintiffs are registered owners of a residence originally held under land grants having tenure in perpetuity. 1 3. This land grants were surrendered to the Land Office for purposes of sub divisions for the development of a housing project. After surrender upon new titles being issued, the tenure in perpetuity was changed to a 99 years lease. 1 21. In the upshot the Court dismissed the OS with no order as to cost. 1 1. This is an application by 4 of the 109 Defendants to set aside the Court’s order allowing the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons for a writ of possession against all the Defendants under Order 89 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). 1 2. In the upshot the Court dismissed the Defendant’s application with a cost of RM3, 000. 1 In the Originating Summons, the plaintiff seeks, amongst others, to set aside the private caveats entered into by the defendant on three (3) properties registered in the plaintiff's name with the defendant as the beneficial owner. 1 The court finds that the defendant failed to disclose a serious question to be tried. The defendant has not demonstrated any valid undisputed facts supporting his right to maintain the caveats. As an important note, it must be emphasised that the plaintiff has never objected to the defendant's ownership rights and entitlement to the properties. As can be seen from the prayers in the Originating Summons, the plaintiff's action is in total compliance with the Deed of Mutual Understanding, including acknowledgement of the plaintiff's 50% share. 1 Due to the above, Enclosure 1 is allowed with no order as to costs. 1 menamatkan pemilikan bersama; seksyen 145 Kanun Tanah Negara; seksyen 417 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965; seksyen 25 dan perenggan 3 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964; Aturan 7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Aturan 28 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Aturan 15 kaedah 6A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Aturan 31 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 - Application via OS by applicant son for an inquiry pursuant to the Mental Health Act 2001 to determine if the 83 old Respondent father is of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs and for consequential orders that the Applicant be appointed as Committee; 1 - 5 other siblings apply to intervene; Court allows the intervention application; - having considered the evidence in the affidavits thus far, the court finds a prima facie case made out and not rebutted; Court thus orders an inquiry to be so conducted and fixed the matter for hearing in April 2026 where the court will then decide on the appropriate members of the committee if the inquiry determines that the respondent is suffering form mental disorder and incapablen of managing his affairs. 1 By way of the Originating Summons [Enclosure 1], the plaintiff is seeking an order for the recovery of possession of the land in dispute pursuant to Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). The plaintiff is also seeking a declaration that the defendants' occupation of the land was unlawful and for the defendants to be held liable for the costs related to restoring the land. The plaintiff is the registered owner of the land. In opposition to Enclosure 1, the defendants claim that they have been granted a licence coupled with equity to occupy the land. In this regard, the court finds that the plaintiff's ownership rights over the land cannot be disputed since the registration of the document of title is conclusive evidence of the plaintiff's ownership rights under the National Land Code 1965. In light of this, the court has no other alternative but to allow Enclosure 1, limited only to prayers that relate to a declaration that the defendants have no occupation or proprietary rights over the land and that the plaintiff is entitled to repossess it. 1 "Litigation in person-conducting 4 separate cases as Plaintiff in other Courts. Application via ex parte OS pursuant to O92r4 for order that she can utilise appointed solicitors to use EFS to file documents in all 4 cases. Also seeks order that she be given several accommodations in her conduct of those 4 trials due to the many medical ailments suffered by her i.e staggered hearing dates, extended times to answer questions and file submissions, having a McKenzie friend etc. Court - the prayer to utilise EFS allowed as will aid applicant. However-court declines to make any orders on the various accommodations sought as will be impeding on manner in which those courts conduct their trial and as such-such accommodations should be properly sought in each of those 4 courts" 1 The Applicant obtained an ex parte order to sell property co-owned with two deceased persons, without notice to their beneficiaries or compliance with Section 145 National Land Code 1965. The Court allowed the beneficiary to intervene and set aside the order for breach of natural justice. Section 145 NLC requires proof that co-proprietors refused partition consent before ordering sale—this requirement applies even when co-proprietors are deceased. The death of co-proprietors does not eliminate their estates' interests or bypass statutory protections. The beneficiary's protective caveat was upheld. 1 Keywords: co-proprietorship, Section 145 National Land Code, ex parte order, natural justice, intervention, beneficial interest, estate administration 1 Abstract: 1 Abstract: A mandatory injunction application addresses competing payment claims from Petronas and Petros for natural gas supply in Sarawak amid conflicting federal-state legislation dispute between gas suppliers Petronas and Petros over payment rights in Sarawak. The injunction was granted to preserve status quo, finding Shell MDS's position caught between competing claims warranted protection, ensuring continued gas supply with protected payments pending resolution of the underlying jurisdictional conflict. 1 Keywords: 1 Interpleader - Mandatory injunction - Natural gas supply - Federal-state jurisdiction - Petroleum Development Act 1974 - Distribution of Gas Ordinance 2016 - Regulatory compliance - Status quo - Balance of convenience 1 This is an application for inquiry under the Mental Health Act 2001 to determine if an 85-year-old father was mentally incapable of managing himself and his affairs. The application cited inappropriate messages and dementia medication as evidence of mental disorder. The Court found no medical diagnosis of mental illness and questioned the applicant's motives given concurrent lawsuits over family assets. The judgment establishes that mental health inquiries require both clinical evidence of illness and functional evidence of incapacity. The Court dismissed the application, emphasising that the legislation cannot be used to advance commercial interests. 1 Mental Health Act; Prima Facie Evidence; Medical Evidence; Mental Capacity; 1 Sports law - Dispute resolution - Taekwondo association - Application for injunction - Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 - Membership withdrawal - Whether dispute subject to mediation - Sports Development Act 1997 - Domestic remedies - Natural justice - Conflict of interest - Whether Olympic Council of Malaysia has jurisdiction to mediate dispute between national sports association and its affiliate - Whether membership decisions exclusively within discretion of national sports body - Constitutional interpretation - Alternative dispute resolution. 1 Plaintiff’s application under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 seeking consequential directions following this Court’s earlier decision dated 16 April 2025, in which the Court declared that the arbitration between the parties may be revived and continued after it was prematurely terminated. The appointed arbitrator refused to proceed with the arbitration. Her refusal was communicated by email, stating that she considered herself functus officio and unable to act further despite this Court’s ruling. The core question is whether the arbitrator’s refusal can override a binding judicial determination. 1 The issues before the Court are: (a) Whether this Court is functus officio in relation to its earlier decision; (b) Whether the Court may invoke Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 to make consequential directions; (c) Whether such directions are necessary to ensure compliance with the Court’s judgment; and (d) Whether the arbitrator’s refusal has any legal basis. 1 Held: the application does not invite the Court to revisit its findings. It merely seeks to ensure effective implementation. The arbitrator’s role is to give effect to the arbitration agreement as clarified by this Court. When an arbitrator refuses to proceed contrary to a judicial ruling, the Court must intervene to protect its own jurisdiction and ensure compliance. The Court is not directing the arbitrator on how to decide any issue. It is merely requiring the arbitrator to continue the process, consistent with the Arbitration Act and the parties’ agreement. Without further directions, the Court’s earlier judgment would be defeated by administrative reluctance. Order 92 rule 4 is precisely designed for such situations. 1 Notice of Application made under Order 28 rule 8(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 seeking to convert the present proceedings commenced by Originating Summons into a Writ action. Contention that there exists serious disputes of material fact that require oral testimony and a full trial. The Plaintiff opposed the application on the ground that the issues raised are purely documentary and legal in nature, and can be properly determined on affidavit evidence. Order 5 rule 2(2) and Order 28 rule 8(1) of the ROC 2012. These provisions draw a clear distinction between proceedings appropriate for Originating Summons and those requiring a Writ. 1 1. The Plaintiff in this case is seeking to enforce a consent order against Janah binti Abdullah (“the deceased”) recorded in Court, against the 1st Defendant who is the administrator of the estate of the deceased, by this Originating Summons (“OS”). 1 13. Apart from non-compliance of the Rules the Court also finds that the OS is barred by laches and limitation as well as not a proper mode to execute the Judgement. In the upshot the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s OS with a cost of RM5,000. 1 The interpleader application regarding USD 2.2 million stakeholder funds held by solicitors deposited in 2020 as security for Futura's cargo claims against Orin Energy. After Futura obtained judgment for USD 2.47 million in 2024, the law firm sought interpleader relief claiming competing claims from Atlantis Commodities, which held a Mareva injunction against Orin Energy. The court found no adverse claims existed, as the stakeholder sum constituted trust monies earmarked for a specific purpose rather than Orin's assets. Atlantis confirmed the funds were not subject to its Mareva injunction. The court ruled the application failed to meet Order 17 requirements and constituted abuse of process designed to delay judgment enforcement. 1 • Interpleader proceedings • Stakeholder funds • Mareva injunction • Order 17 Rules of Court 2012 • Abuse of process 1 Isu utama - sama ada Plaintif berhak kepada perintah penzahiran dokumen pra-tindakan di bawah Aturan 24 kaedah 7A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - syarat-syarat perlu dipenuhi: (a) Terdapat niat untuk memulakan prosiding; (b) Orang yang diminta dokumen berkemungkinan menjadi pihak dalam prosiding tersebut; (c) Dokumen yang diminta adalah relevan dan berada dalam milikan, jagaan atau kawalan pihak yang diminta; (d) Penzahiran adalah perlu untuk membolehkan pemohon mendapatkan nasihat undang-undang. Dokumen yang tidak boleh dizahirkan (non-disclosable documents) adalah merujuk kepada dokumen-dokumen yang tidak wajib didedahkan kepada pihak lawan dalam proses pendedahan dokumen (discovery) Mahkamah mendapati surat Defendan merupakan pengakuan fakta asas bahawa ralat profesional mungkin berlaku yang sekali gus menjadikan dokumen-dokumen dalaman seperti laporan siasatan, minit mesyuarat atau laporan kejadian (“incident reports”) amat relevan kepada prosiding kecuaian. Defendan sendiri membuka pintu kepada isu liabiliti, maka Plaintif berhak meneliti dokumen berkaitan melalui penzahiran. 1 1. The Plaintiff (P) is the joint management body (JMB) of the Tasik Puteri apartments property development project. 2. The Defendant (D) is the owner-developer of the Tasik Puteri apartments. 3. After P was formed, P discovered that D had not paid the premiums necessary to progress their application for subdivision of the Tasik Puteri apartments so that separate strata titles could be issued, and ownerships be transferred, to the purchasers. Despite continued requests, D did not pay the required premiums, causing the application for strata titles to stall. 4. P then filed this Originating Summons for the relief of an Order that D pays the premiums required, and that D completes and settles the application for subdivision, to get the strata titles. 5. Should P’s Originating Summons be allowed? 1 Wills and Probate — Construction of Will — Interpretation of clause — Forfeiture clause — Whether clause empowers executrix to impose preconditions for release of legacy — Requirement for beneficiary to execute letter of undertaking not to dispute Will — Whether such precondition ultra vires powers of executrix 1 Trusts — Fiduciary Duties of Trustees and Executors — Duty to administer estate in accordance with terms of Will — Duty of impartiality towards beneficiaries — Breach of fiduciary duty — Unilateral imposition of conditions not found in Will — Discriminatory distribution of legacies 1 Contract — Construction of Testamentary Instrument — Modern approach to construction — Ascertaining intention of testator from ordinary meaning of words — Giving effect to all provisions of Will — No implication of terms where language is clear — Kalwant Singh a/l Ujagar Singh v Jaswant Kaur a/p Ujagar Singh applied 1 Wills and Probate — Beneficiary’s Rights — Beneficiary’s entitlement to legacy — Whether commencement of proceedings to enforce Will constitutes a "dispute" or "claim" within meaning of forfeiture clause — Beneficiary not challenging validity of Will but seeking to enforce its terms — Forfeiture clause not engaged 1 Strata Management — Developer — Meaning of “developer” — Whether confined to party named in certificate of establishment — Functional and purposive interpretation — Project management agreement and powers of attorney conferring full authority — Issuance of vacant possession — Convening first annual general meeting — Holding of maintenance and sinking fund accounts — Whether first defendant fell within definition of “developer” — Strata Management Act 2013, ss 2, 18 1 Civil Procedure — Striking out — Application under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) & (d) Rules of Court 2012 — Whether claim disclosed reasonable cause of action — Whether claim plainly and obviously unsustainable — Presence of triable issues — Prohibition against conducting mini-trial — Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd applied 1 Evidence — Documentary evidence — Project management agreement — Powers of attorney — Audited accounts — Statutory declaration identifying defendant as developer — Evidential weight — Whether administrative certificate conclusive of legal status 1 Administrative Law — Certificates of establishment — Nature and effect — Whether determinative of statutory obligations — Whether subsequent amendment extinguishes accrued obligations — Certificate as prima facie but not conclusive evidence 1 Practice and Procedure — Originating summons — Declaratory and injunctive relief — Statutory duties of developer — Suitability for determination — Claim properly maintainable 1 Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Order 23, rule 1, Rules of Court 2012 — Plaintiff ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction — Two-stage inquiry — Whether threshold condition satisfied — Exercise of judicial discretion — Factors to be considered — Plaintiff's assets within jurisdiction — Whether property subject to litigation constitutes sufficient security — Security ordered in reduced amount 1 Company Law — Winding up — Defendant company in liquidation — Second defendant as former managing director — Concession of claim — Whether claim against second defendant academic — Claim for damages remains live — Exposure to legal costs 1 Contract — Sale and Purchase Agreement — Dispute over ownership of property — Consent judgment — Subsequent sale by vendor to third party — Plaintiff seeking declaration of ownership and damages — Whether plaintiff's claim against second defendant sufficiently strong to refuse security 1 Equity — Discretion of the Court — Security for costs — "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case" — Proportionality of security ordered — Amount of security to reflect nature and scope of remaining claim against defendant 1 Association registered under Societies Act 1966 – Constitution of the society is a contract between the members – S.14(1) Societies Act 1966 – Mandatory for all amendments to the constitution to be filed with Registrar of Societies – Disagreement between committee members akin to dispute between parties to a contract – Compound imposed by Securities Commission does not amount to conviction of a criminal offence – Constitution of the society to be interpreted logically, coherently with other clauses with common sense – No power for secretary to call committee meeting – Minority committee members resolved to remove majority of committee members and appoint new committee members – Resolutions void to be set aside 1 Civil Procedure — Discovery — Pre-action discovery — Order 24, rule 7A, Rules of Court 2012 — Application for discovery after commencement of proceedings against developer — Whether application procedurally proper — Whether purpose of pre-action discovery to identify cause of action and proper party — Application dismissed 1 Civil Procedure — Documents sought from non-party — Application for discovery against person not a party to proceedings — Whether discovery appropriate where proceedings already commenced — Order 24, rule 7A(7), Rules of Court 2012 — Prohibition on discovery after proceedings commenced 1 Judicial Review — Challenge to extension of time granted by Ministry of Housing and Local Government — Whether application constitutes impermissible collateral challenge — Proper remedy is judicial review under Order 53 — Failure to file judicial review within prescribed time — Application dismissed 1 Contract — Sale and Purchase Agreement — Delay in delivery of vacant possession — Claim for liquidated ascertained damages — Developer attributing delay to water supply system completion — Whether discovery against third party necessary to determine liability 1 Whether the current proceeding is filed in a wrong forum and this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the validity and legality of the purported Resolution - Whether only the Owners who signed the SPA would be able to seek the reliefs claimed in encl. 1 and not the developer who prepared the SPA itself - Whether the Respondent has breached paragraph 19(1)(c) of the SMA 2013 during the First AGM in passing the purported Resolution - Whether the Respondent has acted in an ultra vires and mala fide manner by determining the MCSF and making the purported Resolution null and void ab initio - Whether the SPA should be read analogously with the Deed of Mutual Covenants (‘DMC’) and any references to the SPA includes the terms in the DMC - Whether the Respondent has breached regulation 13 of the SMR 2015 by failing to provide any notice in Form 5A confirming the MCSF within 28 days after each AGM - Whether the Applicant is guilty of laches and that such delay requires the Court to dismiss the application - Whether the Applicant filed the O.S. under a bona fide intention and to uphold its legal rights under the SMA 2013 and SMR 2015 - Whether if this Court allows the Applicant’s prayers, it will prejudice the other Owners who have never questioned the rates of the MCSF 1 [1] This is an application by the Applicant seeking- - Satu injuksi deklarasi bahawa Responden tiada sebarang hak kepada syer Pemohon sebanyak 1/18 atas tanah yang dipegang di bawah Sibu Lease 45865, TRN: 03-SSL- 000-000, 45865, Area 1.2019 Ha more or less, Locality of Land Bukit Lima, Sibu pada ketika ini. (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai ”Hartanah tersebut”); 1 [2] Another point that this Court has observed, is that the Land will only vest in the Respondent, if the Land is registered under section 349 of the National Land Code. In this regard, section 350 of the National Land Code has, the provision where the bankrupt is discharged. 1 [3] This Court is of the view that the Applicant should also observe section 350 of the National Land Code, when making this application. As such, the Application is allowed with cost. 1 the relationship that governs an association and its members is contractual in nature-as long as the 2nd EGM Notice complies with the requirements as set out in the Constitution, the Association must convene the EGM as the right of members to requisition for an EGM is entrenched in the Constitution-Order 18 rule 12 (1) of the Rules of Court 2012 the particulars of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation must be specifically pleaded-it is trite law that where a constitution confers power to appoint, it is a necessarily implied term that the appointing authority should also have the power to remove, to suspend, to-reappoint or reinstate-the doctrine of agents of necessity-An interim General Council can be elected as an agent of necessity to ensure that the Association continues to operate and function normally until the next AGM-There is no law that requires a Court to scrutinize the motives, benevolent or otherwise of members of an association or society, if the members so wish to remove the office bearers. Each member has the absolute right to vote for or against any resolution. It may be a member does not like the face of an office bearer and thus vote against him. That is his prerogative as a member-an application to convert an Originating Summon to a writ will not be allowed if the Originating Summon can be decided based on affidavit evidence-an application to transfer an Originating Summon and consolidate the Originating Summon with a writ action will not be allowed if it will delay a fair hearing of the Originating Summon. 1 Civil Procedure – Consolidation and transfer – Originating Summons and Writ Action – Common contractual framework – Risk of inconsistent findings – Judicial economy 1 Civil Procedure – Conversion – Allegations of fraud – Substantial dispute of fact – Need for oral evidence – Originating Summons unsuitable 1 In dismissing the Plaintiff’s application, she was ordered to pay costs of RM7,000 forthwith. The order for transfer to the High Court was not allowed so the case at the Sessions Court was instructed to proceed immediately. 1 In the premises, this Court is unable to grant the prayers sought for by the Plaintiff at the moment. This Court notes that this application was filed way before the citation and application to challenge the validity of the will. So, costs of RM10,000 subject to allocation, is deemed reasonable. 1 Permohonan untuk pindaan Saman Pemula. Mahkamah dapati pindaan itu telah menukarkan sifat tindakan asal. Permohonan ditolak dengan kos. 1 Whether the Applicant’s objections in respect of the Notice of Assessment/ Amended Assessment are statutorily time-barred - Whether the Applicant failed to exhaust statutory domestic remedies 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Leave to commence judicial review proceedings for certiorari – Claim for damages included – Whether claim for damages sufficiently pleaded – Order 53 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 1. The respondent filed L.22 under O.32 r.6 and/or O.92 r.4 Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012) to a declaration to set aside the Leave Order granted for JR Application. 1 2. On 10.03.2025: (1) I allowed this application at a global cost of RM10,000.00, and (2) L.19 (Notice of Application for an Injunction) is withdrawn by the applicants, with cost. 1 Amendment to O.53 Statement-principles governing amendment of documents in O.53-whether O.20 r.8 applies to amendment to Statement filed-amendment sought to include developments subsequent to filing of Judicial Review application-serious allegations raised against the respondent-whether the amendments necessary-no nexus to the reliefs sought-prejudice to the Respondents in having to answer to these allegations-whether amendments seek to introduce a new cause of action in damages 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Application for mandamus – Documents concerning a Concession Agreement to build a highway – Locus standi – Whether residents of surrounding areas entitled documents by a mandamus order – Social Impact Assessment Report – Environmental Impact Assessment Report – Traffic Impact Assessment Report – Minutes of Focus Group Discussions organised by concession company – Concession Agreement 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Charge dealt with summarily – Disobedience of standing order – Right to be heard – Punishment – Fairness of procedure – Right to be heard – Sentence and proportionality – Sections 51(1), 95 and 98 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 – Rules 36, 36 of the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial review – Industrial Court –Dismissal – Misconduct – Inappropriate behaviour – Harassment – Irrationality of decision – Findings of fact – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse – sections 20 and 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial Review – Mandamus – Public services – Pensions – Pension Adjustment – Res Judicata – Service Circulars – Sections 3 and 6 of the Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 1 1. TS Global Network Sdn. Bhd. filed an application for leave to adduce a copy of a further affidavit, as additional evidence and in support of its Judicial Review application (enclosure 1). 2. The Second Respondent contested and argued that the applicant had failed to provide any averment regarding the relevance of the said affidavit, and that the present application should be dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis. 3. I heard this application on 28.04.2025 and I find that this application has no merit and is dismissed with costs in the cause. 1 Constitutional Law: Citizenship – By operation of law – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Burden of proof – Section 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Federal Constitution –Section 19B of Part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – Legitimate Expectation – Article 19 of the Federal Constitution 1 The Applicant applied for judicial review under O.53 RC 2012. Leave was granted on 17.08.2023. The Applicant applied for: (i) A declaration or certiorari order quashing the decision of the Respondents in dismissing the Applicant on the basis that the decision was illegal and invalid (ii) A Mandamus to compel the Respondents to clear the applicant's service record and for his reinstatement together with back wages. (iii) Other reliefs and costs. [2] On 14.01.2025, I find that the Applicant has failed to prove his case, and I dismissed the Applicant’s Judicial Review application with no order for costs. 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial review – Termination – Fixed term contract or permanent employee – Limitation – Factors to be considered – Whether genuine fixed term contract or dressed up – Whether employee a permanent employee – Extra-territorial – Separate legal entity. 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial Review – Constructive dismissal – Law on transfers – Employee transferred and relocated to another location to salvage housing project – Whether transfer mala fide – Whether transfer due to victimization or harassment – Failure to respond to protest letter – Consent before transfer – Whether constructive dismissal established . 1 1. The applicants filed L.12 (amended) on 07.08.2024 for leave to apply for Judicial Review (JR) under O.53 r.3(1) Rules of Court 2012. 2. It was strongly objected to by the Attorney General Chambers on the ground that it was filed out of time and among others, it is an abuse process of the Court. 3. On 12.3.2025, after hearing parties, I find that L.12 has no merits and is dismissed with no order for costs. 1 1. The Applicant seeks leave to commence a Judicial Review application to challenge a decision made by the Industrial Court, IC Award No: 230 of 2024 dated 07.02.2024 under O.53 Rules of Court 2012. The IC held, the Second Respondent (R2) was dismissed with no cause. However, the IC also found that R2 was contributorily negligent (in creating disharmony at the workplace) and ordered a deduction of 50% of the computed compensation (RM165,000.00 - RM82,500.00), and awarded RM82,500.00 to R2. 1 2. On 12.06.2025, I hold that this leave application has no merit, and it was dismissed with costs. 1 (1) The Applicant is seeking a stay of the decision made by DBKL (R1) in granting a development order to Kaisar Maxim Sdn Bhd (R2) for a proposed development on a piece of land classified as reserve land for power lines and electricity transmission. (2) Both DBKL and Kaisar Maxim, contested the stay application (L1), arguing that the application has no merits and should be dismissed with costs. (3) I heard this stay application on 17.06.2025 and I find that this application has merit and is allowed with costs in the cause. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial Review – Mandamus – Commission of Enquiry – Terms of reference – Section 18 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 – Commission concluded – Right of representation – Whether matter academic 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Declaration that restriction order null and void – Statement of “grounds and allegations of facts” not attached to restriction order – Whether such statement mandatory – Time taken to produce report – Time taken to issue restriction order – Whether inordinate – Whether witness statement properly recorded – Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 1 The Applicant sought to challenge by Judicial Review application to quash the Suspension of Detention Order dated 29.03.2024 under Section 7(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (Act 316) and for further relief to release the Applicant from the conditions/restraint as contained in the said order. On 20.02.2025, after considering all the cause papers and respective written submissions of the parties, I find that the Applicant has failed to prove his case, and I dismissed the Applicant’s Judicial Review application with no order for cost. 1 Five extensions given to developer for delivery of vacant possession given due to Covid situation-Applicant unit owner filed application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings in respect of the extensions-AGC objected on grounds application filed beyond 90 days in O. 53 r 3(6)-Applicant had written -to Respondent giving 14 days to respond failing which appeal deemed rejected-judicial review filed within 90 days from expiry of 14 days-whether omission to respond deemed a decision of the Respondent-alternatively, if judicial review filed beyond 90 days, Applicant filed for extension of time, but no reasons given for delay-whether extension can be granted. 1 Applicant was a senior police officer-charged with criminal offences-after he was charged, disciplinary action taken to interdict and then suspend him-convicted and sentenced to prison one day after he was to go on compulsory retirement-disciplinary proceedings not completed to await outcome of court proceedings-after serving sentence he wrote to Public Services Department to enquire about his arrears of salary and pension payment-received response that the disciplinary proceedings were not completed-application of s.3, 9, 10 and 21 of the Pensions Act-whether the Applicant’s pension benefits cease upon conviction-whether issue of condonation arises on the factual matrix-whether mandamus can be issued 1 In this JR Application, the Applicant applies for the following order: [1] Leave be granted to quash the entire decision made by the Industrial Court of Malaysia (the Second Respondent - R2) in Awad No. 1353 of 2023, dated 14.06.2023 (received by the Applicant's solicitors on 04.07.2023) (the Awad) and other prayers. [2] On 06.01.2025, after considering all the cause papers and submissions of the parties, I hold that the Applicant failed to prove his case and it was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid within 30 days from the date of this Order. 1 application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings under O. 53, r. 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 - the Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant by the Kuala Lumpur High Court (WA-24NCvC-1212-03/2024) on 16.7.2024 and is prohibited from commencing any further legal proceedings in any court in Malaysia except with leave of the High Court in Malaya 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Leave to commence judicial review – certiorari – Jurisdictional issues – Decision to be reviewed made in Sarawak under written law enacted by the Legislature of Sarawak – Whether the High Court of Malaya has jurisdiction or power to review such decision – Mandamus to compel the Federal Government to enact a uniform law – Whether the High Court of Malaya has jurisdiction or power 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Action under section 354 of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) – Guilty of breach and punished – Grounds of review – Breach of natural justice – Error in evaluating evidence – Effect of grounds not state in Order 53 Statement – Capital Market Services Licence – Central Depository System Account – Sections 3, 15 and 16 of the Securities Commission Malaysia Act 1993 – Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari to quash restriction order – Wording of condition in the statute different from wording in restriction order – Whether restriction order rendered invalid – Restricted person not conveyed to place of restriction according to stipulate time –Whether detention rendered invalid – Sections 6(3) and 6(3A) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 1 Approvals given by DBKL to Bangsar Park Residents Association (“BPRA”) for GN scheme-approvals lapsed-Applicants challenged DBKL’s inaction to permit continuation of scheme-after JR filed, DBKL granted approval-whether JR academic or premature- moulding of reliefs by the court whether JR filed out of time as grounds for application arose much earlier when earlier approval lapsed -jurisdiction of court to hear JR when O.53 r.3(6) not complied with -whether GN scheme is illegal or unconstitutional-Court of Appeal had in earlier suit filed by Applicants against BPRA for nuisance and breach of privacy laws, held it to be legal-s.101 of the Local Government Act 1976 allows DBKL to approve the scheme-whether same issues in private law action being litigated in present JR-whether mandamus ought to issue against DBKL to remove structures. 1 Whether R1 had acted contrary to sub-s 26(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (‘IRA 1967’) when he failed to address his mind to the internal settlement mechanism agreed between the parties in Article 4(5) of the 19th CA and formed an opinion that the said internal settlement mechanism would not achieve settlement - Whether R1 had undermined the on-going conciliation process at the JPP when he secretly met with R3 to discuss the Festival Aid issue and then supported the inferior payment package made by R3 to members of the Applicant - Whether R1 had sufficiently satisfied himself that the internal settlement mechanism agreed between the parties in Article 4(5) of the 19th CA would not achieve settlement pursuant to sub-s 26(3) of the IRA 1967 - Whether R1 had acted contrary to sub-s 26(2) of the IRA 1967 when he had referred the 20th CA to R4 without the consent of the Applicant 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Application for leave to commence judicial review – Certiorari – Declaration – No reasons for decision to be reviewed – Application for reasons – No response from decision maker 1 REVENUE LAW: Judicial review – Alternative remedy of appeal – Specialised body – Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) – Government of Malaysia v Jagdis Singh and Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-Sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan – Special circumstances test – Director-General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') raised notices of additional assessment – Whether assessment correct – Whether for High Court or SCIT to determine – Section 99 of the Income Tax Act 1967 1 Application for interim stay of Strata Management Tribunal’s Award pending substantive judicial review-Applicant ordered to pay arrears of maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund-whether special circumstances proven- whether merits of case relevant-whether substantive judicial review will be rendered nugatory if stay is refused-whether irreparable harm will result-only monetary judgment-amount insubstantial. 1 Whether the application is an abuse of court process - Whether the Applicant has established the requirements for a stay of the travel ban 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Civil Service – Civil service circulars – Application for leave – Test – Failure to meet qualifications for promotion – Annual appraisal – Whether non-justiciable – Mandamus – Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(6) 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial Review or appeal – section 35 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 [Act A1615] – Sections 20 and 33C of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Constructive dismissal – Conditions of constructive dismissal – Burden of proof and evidential burden – Whether Industrial Court committed an error of law – Irrationality – Illegality 1 Whether the application in encl. 1 was filed out of time and the EoT should be refused - Whether the Applicant failed to name FSSB as a party in encl. 1 - Whether the application under O. 53, RC 2012 was irregular 1 Whether there was a fatal misalignment between the challenged “decision” and the reliefs sought - Whether there was an arguable case under Article 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution - Whether there was circumvention of Article 15A of the Federal Constitution and an abuse of the judicial review process 1 1. The Applicant is seeking a stay of the execution and/or further actions and/or other applications whatsoever with regards to the decision of BORANG 4 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Award) by the Tribunal for Anti Sexual Harassment dated 01.08.2024 until the disposal of the substantive Judicial Review Application. 2. I heard this stay application on 16.06.2025. After reviewing the cause papers filed, the respective written submissions of the parties, and hearing both counsels, I find that this application has no merit and is dismissed with costs in the cause. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari – Minister excluded period under subsection 38C(1) of the Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact Of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 (“COVID-19 Act”) – Date of Sale and Purchase Agreement for the purposes of Liquid Ascertained Damages – Whether illegality or irrationality shown 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Housing developers – Certiorari – Minister excluded period under subsection 35(1) and 38C(1) of the Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact Of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 (“COVID-19 Act”) – Date of Sale and Purchase Agreement for the purposes of Liquid Ascertained Damages – Whether illegality or irrationality shown – Whether ought to interfere with exercise of discretion to refuse adjournment 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Securities Industry Dispute Resolution Centre’s (“SIDREC”) – Adjudication of dispute between investor and Member of SIDREC – Adjudication award – Appeal to SIDREC’s Appeals Committee (“SIAC”) – Judicial review against decision of SIAC – Whether liability appealable when claimant successful – Whether subject of review circumscribed by jurisdiction of SIAC to hear appeals on serious errors of law and fact – Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 – Capital Markets and Services (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2010 – Terms of Reference (Rules for SIDREC and SIAC) of the Security Industry Dispute Resolution Centre 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Termination of probationer – Regulation 48, Subregulation 50(1) and Regulation 52 of the Public Officers (Appointment, Promotion and Termination of Service) Regulations 2012 – Whether prerequisites satisfied to justify termination 1 1. The Applicant sought to challenge the Industrial Court's (IC) decision in IC Award No: 1706/2023 (2nd IC Award 2023) by Judicial Review (JR) application. 1 2. On 17.06.2025, after considering all the cause papers and the respective written submissions of the parties, I hold that this JR Application has no merit, and it is dismissed with costs of RM20,000.00 payable within 30 days from the date of this order. 1 Whether the Respondents’ decision was tainted by irrationality - Whether the Respondents’ decision was tainted by procedural impropriety - 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Application for planning permission – Conditions attached – Appeal to the Federal Territory Appeal Board – Appeal allowed – Application for leave out of time – Test – No good reason to extend time – Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 – Order 53 Rules 3(6) and (7) of the Rules of Court 2012 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial review – Dismissal without just cause and excuse – Fixed-term contracts issued by two companies – Employee stationed in Vietnam – Which company is the true employer – Can both companies be employers – Whether genuine fixed-term contracts – Whether employee a permanent employee 1 Dismissal from police force-Applicant issued show cause in respect of 2 charges-representations made-before making decision, the 1st Respondent as Disciplinary Board revoked the show cause and issued a another show cause comprising 6 charges-Applicant made representations-1st Respondent found Applicant failed to exculpate himself-imposed punishment of dismissal for 2 charges-the decision is tainted with procedural impropriety as the 1st Respondent ought to considered the representations in respect of 1st show cause instead of revoking-whether the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 allows for revocation of show cause-whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the disciplinary offence-whether there is a duty to give reasons when informing the Applicant of the decision to dismiss him 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Late delivery of vacant possession – Liquidated ascertained damages – Schedule G Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 – Settlement agreement – Contemporaneous documents – Housing Development (Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims) Regulations 2002. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Late delivery of vacant possession – Liquidated ascertained damages – Schedule G Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 – Settlement agreement – Contemporaneous documents – Housing Development (Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims) Regulations 2002 1 Non-Compliance with s 4 of the DDSPMA 1985 - Non-Compliance with s 2 of the DDA 1952 and sub-s 6(1) of the DDSPMA 1985 – the drug mentioned in the Investigation Report does not exist and is not listed in the First Schedule, Part III of the DDA 1952 and therefore the RO is defective and flawed - Non-Compliance with s 6 of the DDSPMA 1985 read together with Article 151 of the Federal Constitution – failure to inform the grounds for the Applicant’s detention and subsequent restriction - Non-Compliance with sub-s 3(3) and 6(3) of the DDSPMA 1985 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial review – Minister of Home Affairs ('Minister') banned film – Prohibition order under section 26 of the Film Censorship Act Film 2002 – Whether section 26 inconsistent with Articles 10(1)(a) and 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution – Doctrine of proportionality – Test applicable – Irrationality – Ouster clause – Right to be heard before prohibition order can be made 1 REVENUE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Leave to commence judicial review granted – Stay of proceedings in judicial review proceedings – Order 53 rule 3(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Test – Same as test granting interlocutory injunction – Different from test for stay of execution of judgment i.e. special circumstances test – Whether policy of “pay first dispute later” under sections 103(1), 103B and 106(3) of the Income Tax Act 1967 can be stayed in judicial review proceedings f proceedings in judicial review proceedings 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial review – Dismissal – Industrial Court – Disrespect, insubordination to superior officer – Language used against superior – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Findings of facts and findings on credibility of witnesses – Whether charges proven – Illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Minister prohibited absolutely book – Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984 – Ground for prohibition order – Likely to be prejudicial to morality – Meaning of “likely to be prejudicial” and “morality” – Test to be applied – Whether Minister’s decision tainted with illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality. 1 Whether R1 had committed errors in law and/ or fact and/ or acted in excess of, and/ or, without jurisdiction with regard to: (a) The barrier access card reader issue (b) The high water billing due to suspected leaking issue 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Bill of Demand – Licensed (Bonded) Manufacturing Warehouse – Licensed (Bonded ) Warehouse – Principal Customs Area – Free Industrial Zone – Foreign company GST registered – Whether located in Malaysia or foreign company – Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 (“GST Act”) – Whether taxpayer entitled to zero rate treatment under section 17(1)(b) of the GST Act – Whether GST Act to be read as one with the Customs Act 1967 – Free Zones Act 1990 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – State Authority – Approval of logging area – Licence to take away forest produce – Licensee different entity – Applicants rights under private agreement – Licensee did not appoint contractor to extract forest produce – Role of State Director of Forestry – Timber – Locus standi – Whether proper parties sued – Sections 3(1), 14, 15(1), 16 18, 19, 22, 23 of the National Forestry Act 1984 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Development plans – Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 – Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 (KLCP) or local plan – Non-compliance with statutory provisions – section 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 (FTP Act) – New amendments made without hearing objections from the public – Interpretation of section 16(1) of the FTP Act – Substantive locus standi – Whether public interest litigation – Appropriate reliefs 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Optional retirement – Application dismissed – Appeal against dismissal rejected – Officer resigned before appeal dismissed – Appeal dismissed – Dismissal of appeal subject matter of review – Test for leave – frivolous and vexatious – subject matter not amenable to judicial review – management prerogative 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial Review – Certiorari – Dismissal based on misconduct – Industrial Court found misconduct not proven – Industrial Court found employee committed a different misconduct – Whether Industrial Court acted ultra vires or in excess of jurisdiction – Duty of Industrial Court under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Dismissal from service – Police force – Misconduct – Right to documents – Right to report of the investigation division of the Police Force – Right to be heard orally and to cross-examine witnesses – Duty to give reasons – Grounds of review not pleaded – Regulations 34, 35, 37 and 38 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial Review – Certiorari – Dismissal based on misconduct – Industrial Court found misconduct not proven – Industrial Court found employee committed a different misconduct – Whether Industrial Court acted ultra vires or in excess of jurisdiction – Duty of Industrial Court under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. 1 - Interlocutory application – Application by Intervener for declaration that Plaintiff’s refusal to accept security offered by the Intervener – Whether the refusal made by the Plaintiff to accept security offered was wrongful and unreasonable - Order 70 Rule 33 Rules of Court 2012 – The Plaintiff had no obligation to deal with the Intervener with regard to its proposed Solicitors Agreement when it lacked legal capacity 1 Admiralty – Setting aside writ in rem and warrant of arrest - Order 12 rule 10 of Rules of Court 2012 – Whether improper exercise of admiralty in rem – In personam judgment obtained from a foreign court – Whether bar in rem action in Malaysia for the same cause of action – Rena K 'no bar rule' – Whether multiciplity of proceeding, res judicata, merger – UK House of Lords case of The Indian Grace (No. 2) – Item 11 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. 1 Contract – Addendum to charterparty – Payment procedure – Acknowledgement and confirmation – Tripartite agreement – Breach – Tort – Inducement of breach of contract – Direct interference – Set-off arrangement – Equity – Constructive trust – Fiduciary duty – Breach – Company law – Directors’ liability – Conspiracy to injure – Predominant intention – Overt acts – Evidence – Section 10, Evidence Act 1950 – Circumstantial proof – Whether conspiracy established. 1 Contract – Main contract – Sub-contract – New contract – Marine sand concession – Dredging operations – Payment obligations – Deposit – Mobilisation fee – Breach – Fraudulent misrepresentation – Representations by directors – Fitness of dredger – Experience and competence – Suitability of concession area – Sedimentary profile – Expert evidence – Hydraulic report – Environmental Impact Assessment – Conspiracy to injure – Corporate veil – Directors’ liability – Tort – Malicious prosecution – Abuse of process – Counterclaim – Mobilisation during monsoon – Whether fraudulent misrepresentation established – Whether conspiracy proven – Whether breach of contract made out – Whether counterclaim for works and mobilisation fee allowed 1 Full trial - Plaintiff requested that the purported policies be cancelled and sought a refund for 50% payment of insurance policy - Defendant refused to do so claiming that the 50% payment were no longer within Defendant’s control - The court allows the Plaintiff’s claim and Defendant to pay the 50% policy premium to the Plaintiff 1 Civil Procedure — Injunction — Interlocutory mandatory injunction — Principles governing grant — Whether plaintiff raised a case that was unusually strong and clear — Whether balance of convenience favoured preservation of status quo — Whether damages adequate remedy — Whether plaintiff entitled to substituted performance of security sum — Consent order — Liberty to apply — Whether time for compliance expired — Power of court to issue directions to give effect — Whether payment by third party valid — Contracts Act 1950, s.41 — Sale of Goods Act 1957, ss.19(1) & 27 — Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950, ss.2 & 4, Hague Rules art III rr.3, 4 & 7 — Rules of Court 2012, O.3 r.4, O.29 r.1 & O.42 r.12 — Specific Reliefs Act 1950, s.53 — Contracts Act 1950, s.41. 1 Equity — Relief against forfeiture — Principles — Whether disproportionate to forfeit fully-paid cargo for minor outstanding balance. 1 Full trial – significance of a warranty in the contract of marine insurance and the interpretation and scope of the warranty - the Defendant has breached the terms of the Policy when it failed and or refused to indemnify the Plaintiff for the claims submitted – the Defendant contends that they has no obligation to pay the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff has breached the warranty - the Defendant has not discharged its burden of proof that the warranty has been breached and that it is discharged from indemnifying the Plaintiff for its losses arising from the Incident. 1 Admiralty jurisdiction – Action in rem – Section 20(2) Senior Courts Act 1981 – Section 24(b) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Ownership dispute between co-owners – Beneficial ownership – Resulting trust – Constructive trust – Investment Agreement – Clause 2 ownership clause – Intention of parties – Contribution to purchase price – Burden of proof – Section 101 Evidence Act 1950 – Forensic evidence – Fabrication of documents – Admissibility and weight of secondary evidence – Expert witness credibility – Application of foreign law – UAE law – Presumption of similarity with Malaysian law – Equity and restitution – Reimbursement of advance contribution – In personam jurisdiction arising from unconditional appearance – Hybrid claim encompassing proprietary and personal remedies – Maritime ownership and equitable interests – Judicial power to grant declaratory and monetary reliefs in admiralty proceedings. 1 - Full trial – The 1st defendant for breach of service agreement and an Addendum in failing to remit certain outstanding cash-on-delivery – The 2nd defendant for unjust enrichment for retaining the outstanding COD amounts – The defendants breached the contractual duties to remit the COD amounts due and owing to the Plaintiff – The 1st defendant bore the duty and obligation to ensure the delivery, including the collection of the COD amounts by its delivery service agent, the 2nd defendant, was carried out in accordance with the agreed terms of the Service Agreement and Addendum 1 The plaintiff is the consignee of cargo carried on defendant’s vessel – The cargo was damaged during voyage due to a typhoon – Whether defendant has breached its contractual and bailment duty to ensure the safety and safe carriage of the plaintiff’s cargo – Whether the master of the vessel had failed to exercise the duty of good seamanship in securing the cargo on the vessel as well as recklessly sailing into the path of a typhoon – Whether the cargo, being deck cargo, was carried at the sole risk of the plaintiff – Whether the defendant is not liable for any loss to the cargo by virtue of the exclusion clauses in the Bill of Lading – Whether the loss was caused by events that fall within the definition of a peril of the sea. 1 Full trial - Locus standi and ownership of the containers based on the Settlement Agreement entered between parties - Whether the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the containers – whether the defendant has any general lien over the containers and whether they entitled to claim against Plaintiff any outstanding fees and disbursement over the storage of the said containers - The court allows the Plaintiff ‘s claim and dismissed Defendant’s claim - The Plaintiff is the legal and beneficial owner of the containers, and that the Defendant has no right, interest, title or authority to hold and or detain the containers 1 Full trial – Interpretation to be given to a Bulk Shipment Clause in a Marine Open Cover - whether the forms of certified surveys at both the loading and discharged ports must be by draught surveys only - whether the same or equivalent method calculation should be used at both the port of loading and discharge port - whether there was any customary practice that had prevented the same or equivalent method of survey calculation to be procured – no requirement that the survey on the Cargoes at the loading and discharge ports must be by draught survey only 1 Full trial – damages due to negligence caused by the vessel to the link bridge of plaintiff’s terminal - application of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, issue of causation and compensatory nature of a claim in tort – the admissibility of the expert witness – whether the 2nd defendant its master and crews, servants, agents and or employees were negligent in the navigation and or management and or control of the 2nd defendant vessel which resulted in the collision – whether the letter of indemnity signed by the 2nd defendant amounts to an admission of liability by the 2nd defendant – the damages sustained by the link bridge directly caused by impact from the vessel colliding into it 1 The claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for damages arising from a fire on a Yacht belonging to the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleged that the fire was caused by negligence on the part of the Defendant or it’s contractor in the course of performing the works. 1 Application in Enclosure 1 to be placed under Judicial Management (“JM”) pursuant to section 465 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”). 1 Company Law - Judicial Management - Application for judicial management order - Companies Act 2016, ss.404 and 405 - Whether objectives in s.405(1)(b)(i) likely to be achieved - survival of company as a going concern - Severe insolvency - Subordination of related creditors - Lack of viable plan to restore solvency - Reliance on future construction project - Absence of proof of financing - Speculative rehabilitation proposal - Strict proof required - Whether judicial management order ought to be refused. 1 COMPANY LAW: Section 414 Companies Act 2016 - Financially distressed company - Interim Judicial Manager appointed - Application by interim Judicial Manager to seek directions from the Court - Utilisation of monies held by interim Judicial Manager - Application to discontinue Originating Summons 1 TRUSTS: Monies owed to the financially distressed company - Whether monies held on trust in favour of Banks - Whether there was intention to create trust - Quistclose trust - Whether monies held on a Quistclose trust - Concept of dual trust mode propounded in Barclays Bank Ltd v. Quistclose Investments Ltd - Quistclose-type of trust in PECD Bhd (In Liquidation) v AmTrustee Bhd 1 Company law - Judicial Management - Appointment on Interim Judicial Manager - Section 405 Companies Act 2016 - Elements for Appointment of Interim Judicial manager - Whether the Appointment of interim Judicial Manager is required. 1 Under section 405 of CA 2016, the court has the power to grant or dismiss an application for a judicial management order-The application for the JMO must be made by the company or its creditor-The shareholders of the Company lack the locus standi to file a JM application in their capacity as shareholders of the Company-The application may be made by ex parte OS-The court should hear the ex parte application for a JMO early and scrutinise carefully whether to grant the JMO or not as the effect of the filing of an application for JM is the imposition of a moratorium on all legal proceedings until the dismissal of the application-The application for a JMO may be made again if the first application failed. The CA 2016 does not limit the application for a JMO to only once. What is important is that the criteria set out in section 405(1) of CA 2016 is satisfied, it is made bona fide and there is full and frank disclosure of all material facts-23. If the 2nd application for a JMO shows the application is “to misuse and manipulate the provisions of the Companies Act 2016 to derail, disrupt and/or to stall or delay any Winding Up proceedings or legal actions being commenced against it with the aforementioned filings of various applications or matters in different forums. … [it] is an abuse of Court process in the circumstances and the court will strike out the OS under Order 18 rule 19 ROC 2012-24. The Court must dismiss the JM application pursuant to section 409(b) of the CA 2016 if it is satisfied that: (a) a receiver or receiver and manager referred to in subparagraph 408(1)(b)(ii) has been or will be appointed; or (b) the making of the order is opposed by a secured creditor, unless the Court considers the public interest so requires as set out in section 405(5) CA 2016-he burden is on the applicant to satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that there is a plan that would likely achieve the survival of the company as a going concern. If the court is not satisfied, the application will be dismissed-Rule 13 (1) of the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018-unsecured creditors do not possess locus standi to intervene in judicial management proceedings-Once a JM application is filed in court, no other proceeding, execution or other legal process shall be commenced or continued and no distress may be levied against the applicant or its property except with leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose-As such, in line with the aforesaid objective, the starting principle when entertaining an application for leave under s 368(1) of the CA is that such leave will only be granted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and the burden will be on the applicant to show so-only be granted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and the burden will be on the applicant to show-The Proposed interveners have failed to show why leave should be granted bearing in mind the objective of a moratorium is for the applicant to “come up with a rescue plan that would enable all to be paid” 1 Company law - Judicial management - Application for judicial management order - Companies Act 2016, ss.404 and 405 - Pre-conditions - Whether objectives in s.405 (1)(b)(i) or (iii) likely to be achieved - Revised debt settlement proposal - Burden of proof - 'Real prospect' or 'More probable than not' test - Strict proof required - Whether judicial management order ought to be dismissed. 1 Company law – Judicial management – Application for judicial management order – Application to intervene – Whether unsecured creditors have locus standi to intervene and be heard – Conflicting Court of Appeal decisions – Interpretation of Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018, r. 13 – Whether r. 13 restricts right of appearance only to secured creditors and veto holders – Purpose of judicial management proceedings – Whether High Court may choose between conflicting appellate authorities – Whether leave to intervene granted 1 Company law-Judicial Management-Application for Judicial Management Order-Section 405 Companies Act 2016-Pre-conditions for grant of judicial management order-Whether objectives in S.405 (1)(b) likely to be achieved-Severe Insolvent-Lack of funding to complete projects-Rights of unsecured creditor-Locus to intervene-Conflict in Court of Appeal decisions-Interpretation of Rule 13 Corporate Rescue Mechanism Rules 2018-Application for Nunc pro tunc leave -Whether winding-up petition filed during moratorium can be validated. 1 Company Law — Winding-up — Petition to wind up based on judgment debt and failure to comply with statutory notice of demand — Application to intervene and stay proceedings — Whether intervener has locus standi — Whether shareholder of petitioner has legal interest in respondent — Derivative action against company director irrelevant to winding-up of respondent — Whether injunction prevents director from affirming affidavits or acting for petitioner — Court satisfied respondent insolvent — Petition compliant with Companies Act 2016 and Winding-Up Rules 1972 — Companies Act 2016 ss. 464, 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a), 470 — Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 rule 28, 29, 30 1 Civil Procedure — Stay of proceedings — Application to stay winding-up petition pending outcome of derivative action — Whether special circumstances exist — Whether applicant has legal or beneficial interest in respondent — Internal company dispute not basis for stay — No disputed debt — Judgment debt remains enforceable — No injunction preventing petitioner from proceeding — Whether balance of convenience favors stay — Court’s discretion under Companies Act 2016 s. 470 and Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s. 25(2), para 11 of Schedule — No abuse of process shown — Application for stay dismissed with costs 1 Company Law-Application to transfer the winding up to Ipoh High Court-Section 23(1) Courts of Judicature Act 1964-Order 57 Rule 1(4) Rules of Court 2012-Issue on Jurisdiction-Whether the filing of Petition in High Court Kuala Lumpur is within the jurisdiction-Whether the application to transfer the proceeding is an abuse by Respondent. 1 Petition to wind-up the Respondent pursuant to section 465(1)(f) and (h) of the Companies Act 2016. Petitioner allege a breakdown of trust and confidence between shareholders holding equal number of shares. 1 Company law-Winding Up Petition-Stay Application _Application to appoint interim Liquidator-Application to strike out Winding Up Petition-Application ad interim stay-Application to expunge affidavits-there are various interlocutory applications involve-Whether the Judge correctly ruled to hear Application to appoint Interim Liquidator instead of other applications first. 1 Company Law — Winding up — Just and equitable ground — Breakdown of mutual trust and confidence — Internal deadlock — Quasi-partnership — Equal shareholding — Inability to appoint auditors — Non-approval of accounts — Personal relationship between shareholders — Sole asset disposed — Whether viable to allow company to continue — Companies Act 2016, s. 465(1)(h) 1 Company Law-Winding Up Petition-Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016-Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016-test of insolvency-if the total liabilities exceed total assets(balance sheet test)-if a company is unable t pay its debts-whether the debt is established ,undisputed and unpaid. 1 Company Law — Winding-up — Petition — Whether bona fide debt — Petition founded on disputed LAD claims and refund of accessory parcels — Whether company is being used for an unlawful purpose — Whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company — Whether appropriate for determination in winding-up proceedings — Whether petition constituted abuse of process — Companies Act 2016, ss 465(1)(e), 465(1)(h), & 465(1)(k). 1 Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Fortuna injunction — Impeachment — Scope and effect — Whether High Court of concurrent jurisdiction may set aside final order — Allegation of fraud — Whether requires fresh action — Delay — Procedural non-compliance —Rules of Court 2012, O 42 r 13. 1 Civil Procedure — Striking out — Abuse of process — Petition filed in breach of subsisting injunction — Whether petition liable to be struck out — Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 19(1)(a),(b),(c)&(d). 1 Company law - winding up - Just and equitable - Companies Act 2016,s.465(1)(h) - Alleged failure of substratum - Dispute as to nature of company's business - Whether company carried on consultancy services or unlawful procurement services - Whether substratum genuinely failed - Disputed allegations on affidavit evidence - Absence of viva voce evidence or cross-examination - Court confined to undisputed facts - Scope of remedies under s.465 - Whether winding-up petition ought to be dismissed. 1 COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Conversion from voluntary to compulsory liquidation – Creditors' voluntary liquidation cannot be continued with due regard to interests of creditors – Whether voluntary winding up can be continued with due regard to interests of creditors or contributories under section 464(2)(d) CA 2016 – Whether court has discretion to convert voluntary liquidation to compulsory liquidation – Whether interim liquidators lack independence and impartiality – Whether voluntary liquidation commenced for ulterior purposes – Whether need for independent investigation into company affairs – Whether views of majority creditors should prevail – Whether fair play and commercial morality principles apply – Appointment of liquidators in compulsory winding up – Whether petitioning creditor's choice of liquidators should be appointed – Whether judgment debts under appeal affect standing of creditors – Whether pending appeals create conflicts of interest for nominated liquidators – Whether court oversight provides adequate safeguards against potential bias 1 INSOLVENCY LAW: Liquidators – Independence and qualifications – Court supervision versus voluntary liquidation – Whether liquidators must be seen to be independent – Whether prior relationship with company affects liquidator independence – Whether court-appointed liquidators as officers of court provide better protection for creditors – Whether forensic investigation capabilities required for complex liquidations – Whether creditors' meetings process would cause unnecessary delays and costs 1 Petition to wind-up the Respondent. The debt claimed in the Statutory Notice is not based on any judgment of court. The Petitioner has filed a suit in the Session Court based on the same documents relied on by the Petitioner in this Petition. Petitioner’s application for summary judgement in the Sessions Court suit was dismissed. Whether the dismissal of the Petitioners summary judgement application can be considered a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. 1 Stakeholder Account – Release of Stakeholder Funds Post-Adjudication – Whether sums held in a stakeholder account pursuant to interlocutory orders should be released to the petitioner following the dismissal of the respondent’s challenge. 1 Section 469(1)(c) CA 2016 - Scope of Judicial Powers under Section 469(1)(c) CA 2016 – Whether the High Court may direct the release of funds to a creditor in a winding up petition without exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 469. 1 Effect of Pending Appeals on Tribunal Awards – Whether a pending appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of a challenge to tribunal awards affects the enforceability of those awards in winding up proceedings. 1 Distinction Between Creditor Petitions and Shareholder Disputes Whether the principles in See Teow Guan v Kian Joo Holdings apply to creditor-initiated winding up petitions based on judgment debts. 1 Company Law — Winding-up — Petition — Debt disputed on substantial grounds — Whether debt admitted — Whether Petitioner has locus standi as creditor — Striking Out Petition — Abuse of process — Bona fide dispute — Arbitration clause in contract — Whether dispute to be resolved by arbitration or suit — Petition filed to compel payment of disputed debt — Companies Act 2016, s. 466(1)(a) — Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(b) and (d) — Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, rr. 7(2), 194(1) — Arbitration Act 2005, s. 18 1 Company Law — Winding up — Petition to wind up company based on unsatisfied judgment debt — Judgment in default entered against Respondent — Statutory notice issued under section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Failure to pay within 21 days — Whether presumption of insolvency applies — No application to set aside judgment — Whether part payments sufficient to rebut presumption — Companies Act 2016, ss. 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a) 1 Insolvency — Presumption of insolvency — Whether Respondent able to rebut presumption of insolvency — No audited financial statements produced — Failure to show solvency through credible evidence — Commercial insolvency test applied — Insolvency remains unrebutted — Company ordered to be wound up 1 Civil Procedure — Abuse of process — Application to strike out winding-up petition — Allegation of settlement agreement — No acceptance of settlement proposal by Respondent — Whether winding-up petition amounts to abuse of process — Principles on bona fide dispute and abuse of winding-up jurisdiction considered and applied 1 Petition to wind up the Respondent pursuant to section 465 (1) ( e) of the Companies Act 2016 - Petition is allowed 1 Petition to wind-up the Respondent under section 465 and 466 of the Companies Act 2016. Whether irregular service of the Statutory Notice invalidates the Petition despite the Respondent not having suffered any substantial injustice from such irregular service. Whether of section 582(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2026 can cure such irregularity. 1 Company law - Winding up - Inability to pay debts - Companies Act 2016, ss. 465 (1)(e) and 466 (1)(a) - Statutory demand - Failure to comply - Presumption of Insolvency - Debt arising from settlement letter - Acknowledgment of debt - Assumption of liability for sister company's debt - Whether debt bona fide disputed on substantial grounds - Without prejudice correspondence - Whether winding -up order properly granted. 1 Company law – Winding up – Inability to pay debts – Companies Act 2016, ss. 465(1)(e) and 466 – Statutory demand – Debt founded on adjudication decisions under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 – Whether adjudicated construction debt disputable in winding-up proceedings – Binding effect of Court of Appeal decision – Indisputability of CIPAA adjudication award – Ex debito justitiae entitlement to winding-up order – Application for stay of winding-up proceedings – Whether stay ought to be granted – Effect of refusal by Court of Appeal to depart from precedent 1 Winding up – Companies Act 2016, Section 465(1)(e) and 466 (1) (a) – The Respondent failed to abide with the Consent Judgment entered between parties in the earlier suit - The Respondents filed application to wound up the Respondent - Whether the Respondent is unable to pay its debts – Whether it was just and equitable for the Company be wound up – The Consent Judgment remains valid and binding - The Respondent fails to comply with the Statutory Notice, the law will presume that the Respondent is insolvent and unable to pay its debts - a lender is entitled to pursue all remedies available against a borrower - Petitioner’s application is allowed with costs. 1 Company law-Winding up-inability to pay debts - Companies Act 2016, ss .465 (1)(e) and 466(1)(a)-Statutory demand-Failure to comply-Presumption of Insolvency-Whether alleged debt genuinely disputed on substantial grounds-Bona fide cross-claim-Whether presumption of Insolvency rebutted-Whether winding-up order properly granted. 1 INSOLVENCY: Company Winding Up – Winding Up Petition – Companies Act 2016 s 465 (1)(e), s.466(1)(a) – Company unable to satisfy its debt – Judgment in Default – Failure to satisfy judgment within statutory period. WINDING UP RULES: Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 r 30 (1) – Affidavit in Opposition filed out of time – Non-Compliance with Mandatory Rule. 1 Company Law-Winding Up Petition-Section 465 Companies Act 2016-Section 466 Companies Act 2016-unable to pay its debts-undisputed outstanding sum-presumption of insolvency unrebutted-no setting aside or stay of the judgment 1 Winding up – Opposition to Petition – Debt due and owing – Companies Act 2016, Section 465(1)(h) – Application to wound up company based on just and equitable provision - Whether the company ought to be wound up for the loss of the company’s substratum and that the relationship between the shareholders has broken down irretrievably – Whether directors had given explanation for their actions - Allegations over amounts claimed is exaggerated – loss of trust and confidence in the directorship – removal of director – legal action against the shareholder - failure to prove that main objective of the company still exist - no active trade since the Termination Notice as reseller of Petitioner’s products was issued – It was just and equitable for the Companies be wound up. Petitioner’s application is allowed. 1 Petition to wind up the Respondent pursuant to section 465(1)(e) read with section 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”). 1 Petition to wind-up the Respondent based on a judgement of court. Whether the Respondent may challenge the decision of the trial court in the Winding-Up proceedings. 1 Application to wind up the respondent for failing to satisfy an adjudication award made under the Construction Industry payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA). Whether the CIPAA Debt becomes indisputable for the Petitioner to have a statutory right ex debito justitiae to the winding up order, thus precluding a stay. 1 Petition to wind-up the First Respondent Company on just and equitable ground. Whether the cessation of business of the Company amount to a loss of substratum which justifies a winding-up order under section 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016. 1 Winding up – Companies Act 2016, Section 465(1)(h) – Whether it was just and equitable for the Companies be wound up for the loss of the company’s substratum, management breakdown and deadlock between the shareholders / directors - Allegations over unaudited Financial Statement for years – less company’s profits – Company has deteriorated. Failure to prove that the main purpose of the Company for which it was formed is gone – a mere change of auditors not give rise to a management breakdown or deadlock - Petitioner’s application is dismissed with costs. 1 Company law-Winding UP - Leave to commence proceedings - Companies Act 2016 ss, 471 (1) and 486 (2) - Proceedings against company in liquidation and court-appointed liquidator-Proposed counterclaim in separate civil suit-Prima facial case - Whether claim can be adequately dealt with in proof of debt process-Locus notwithstanding failure to file proof of debt - Protection of liquidator as officer of court - Threshold for granting leave- Whether leave properly granted. 1 COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Liquidators – Applications against court-appointed liquidators – Requirement for prior leave of Winding Up Court – Whether leave must be obtained before commencing proceedings against liquidators – Whether liquidators are officers of the court – Whether proceedings constitute interference with liquidator's duties – Statutory framework under Companies Act 1965 and Companies Act 2016 – Application of transitional provisions 1 COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Liquidators – Inspection of books and papers – Creditor's right to inspect documents – Whether creditors entitled to delivery of certified copies of documents – Whether post-winding up agreements fall within scope of inspection rights – Relevance and necessity of documents sought – Whether application constitutes fishing expedition – Distinction between inspection rights and discovery procedures – Application of section 248 Companies Act 1965 and section 501/509 Companies Act 2016 1 COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Liquidators – Court's supervisory jurisdiction – Whether courts should interfere with liquidator conduct – Whether evidence of fraud or bad faith required – Whether prolonged duration of liquidation justifies enhanced court oversight – Liquidator's duty of transparency versus protection from vexatious applications – Balance between creditor rights and liquidator independence 1 COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Committee of inspection – Formation of committee of inspection in court-ordered liquidations – Whether statutory provisions permit committee formation under Companies Act 2016 – Whether individual creditor may compel convening of meeting – Whether broad creditor support required – Effect of prior court order appointing liquidators without committee of inspection – Distinction between creditors' voluntary liquidation and court-ordered liquidation 1 COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Liquidators – Liquidator's accounts – Whether liquidator can be compelled to produce Form 75 accounts – Sufficiency of statutory filings with Companies Commission of Malaysia – Whether publicly accessible accounts satisfy disclosure requirements – Burden of proof on applicant alleging non-compliance with statutory filing obligations 1 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Transitional provisions – Application of Companies Act 1965 versus Companies Act 2016 – Interpretation of section 619 Companies Act 2016 – Whether ongoing liquidations continue under old Act provisions – Whether new applications by third parties must comply with current statutory requirements – Meaning of "relevant provisions" in transitional context 1 Company Law - Application to proceed with arbitration proceeding - Application to proceed with enforcement of final award in the arbitration - Section 486(2) Companies Act 2016 - pre-condition to grant leave - Liquidator refuses to act for Respondent - Liquidator's sanction to act for respondent - Whether the nunc pro tunc leave granted is valid - Whether there is a breach of natural justice to the Applicant as the nunc pro tunc leave application previously filed ex parte. 1 Company law-Post Winding-up-leave application to commence committal proceedings against a liquidator-Alleged contempt for breaching Court of Appeal's order-Whether there is a requirement for leave before proceedings commenced against liquidator-Whether the leave granted to commence committal proceedings against liquidator is valid /reasonable. 1 Company law - Winding up - Secured creditor - declaration under Companies Act 2016, s. 486 (2) and Twelfth Schedule - Whether creditor entitled to declaration of secured status - filing of proof of debt - Whether filing amounts to surrender of security - Whether creditor holds lien or charge within definition of secured creditor - Whether post - petition caveat constitutes invalid preference - Creation of security prior to presentation of winding-up petition - Whether applicant properly recognised as secured creditor. 1 Company law - Stay of winding-up - Interim stay - Section 492 Companies Act 2016 - Test for stay of winding-up - Rights of creditors - Opposition by financial creditors - Role of official Receiver - Whether stay of winding-up order is ought to be granted. 1 Companies – Winding up – Contributory – Leave to bring, continue and defend proceedings in name of company in liquidation – Application under s 486(2) Companies Act 2016 – Whether applicant had locus standi as shareholder – Whether liquidator refused or declined to act – Whether court required to assess merits in detail – Test whether grant of leave is in interests of company – Pending appeals against High Court judgment exceeding RM8 million – Impeachment proceedings alleging fraud – Taxation proceedings and defence of solicitors’ claim – Whether continuation of proceedings may preserve or enhance company’s assets or reduce liabilities – Financial difficulties of company not determinative – Leave granted subject to undertaking to bear legal costs and account for proceeds – Companies Act 2016, ss 2, 466(1)(a), 486(2). 1 Company Law — Winding up — Proof of debts — Rejection of proof of debt by liquidator — Applicant filed Proof of Debt and was rejected by the previous liquidators — Applicant then filed an application to remove the previous liquidators — Court of Appeal allowed — OR was appointed as liquidator — No appeal against the earlier decision by the previous liquidator to reject the previous Proof of Debt — Applicant filed new Proof of Debt with the same debt and rejected by the current liquidator— Appeal — Whether liquidator was correct in rejecting Applicant’s Proof of Debt 1 Company Law - Post Winding Up - Application to appoint Private Liquidator - 2 sets of nominees from creditors - whether the majority in number and value of the creditors support the private liquidator's nominees is conclusive - elements to disqualify the nomination of private liquidator. 1 Appointment of Private Liquidator - Sections 482 & 521 Companies Act 2016 - Substitution of Official Receiver - Court's discretion - Weight to be given to creditor wishes - Voting by value - Creditors' choice prevails over contributories - Abandoned development project - Project-specific needs requiring specialist expertise - Rehabilitation and strata management - Drastic reduction in asset value necessitating forensic investigation - Statement of Affairs discrepancies - Committee of Inspection oversight - Contributories' objections - Speculative white knight proposal - Cost concerns - Creditors as primary aggrieved parties - Proper administration of liquidation. 1 Application for an order that the respondent (wound-up company) registers the subject shares in the name of the intervener – The subject shares were sold to the intervener – The intervener failed to register the subject shares in his name – The applicant holds the subject shares as nominee – Whether the applicant has locus standi – Whether prior sanction of the court for the disposal of the subject shares was obtained under section 472 of the Companies Act 2016 – Whether the respondent has refused to register the subject shares – Whether delay on the part of the applicant to pursue for the registration of the subject shares. 1 Application to set aside a Winding-Up Order. Whether the First Winding-Up Order was obtained in contravention of the Winding-Up Rules, and whether the Petitioner in the First Winding-Up Order has locus standi to file the Petition. 1 Company Law-Post Winding Up-Leave Application to commence proceedings against wound up company-Section 471(1) Companies Act 2016-test for leave-prima facie case-remedies sought of declaratory relief and specific performance cannot be granted by winding up Court or by the proof of debt process. Company Law-Post Winding Up-Leave Application to commence proceedings against Liquidator-test for leave-prima facie case-merits to the claim-proof of pecuniary loss 1 Company law-Post Winding-up-Priority of payments-Whether post-liquidation solicitor's fees constitute " costs and expenses of the winding-up" salvage principle in insolvency-Fees incurred under authority of liquidation - Whether taxation required-Whether OR correct to classify fees as pari passu-Equity and fairness in distribution - Whether solicitors' fees enjoy priority over unsecured creditors. 1 Appeal against decision of liquidator – Section 279 of the Companies Act 2016 - Whether the professional’s services rendered by the Applicant falls under priority payments and whether the Bills are ‘costs and expenses in the winding up’ under Section 292(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 [or Section 527(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016] - whether the same should be treated as pari passu together with the claims of pre-winding up creditors of the Company – S. 292(1)(a) of the Act is not exhaustive to three expenses specifically mentioned - ‘liquidation expenses principle’ – The Court held that the Professionals contributed to the successful recovery of property for the benefit of the Company and the creditors in general. The Court held that the decision of the Official Receiver be set aside and payment be paid to the Applicant. Application is allowed. 1 Company law - Winding up - Post - winding up application - Misfeasance and fraudulent trading - Alleged breach of fiduciary duties - Misapplication of company assets - Whether post - Winding up notice of motion constitutes originating proceeding - Practice direction no 1 of 2018 - Nature of post - winding up application - Interlocutory proceeding - Whether defective motion may be converted into writ - Whether procedural defect curable. 1 Bankruptcy - Appeal to judge in Chambers - Application for stay of bankruptcy proceedings - Stay dismissed by Deputy Registrar - Power of Court to grant stay of bankruptcy proceedings - Whether the reasoning given by Judgment Debtor for stay are sufficient grounds - Irreparable harm argument - Section 97 Insolvency Act - Rule 137 Insolvency Rules 2017 - Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012 - Test for ' Sufficient grounds' for stay - Whether bankruptcy proceedings amount to abuse. 1 Bankruptcy - Appeal to judge in Chambers - Application to set aside Creditor's petition - Application to set aside bankruptcy Notice - Insolvency Act 1967 - Insolvency rules 2017 - whether Bankruptcy Notice should premised on the settlement Agreement and not Judgment - whether the judgment was superseded and controlled by the Settlement Agreement - Section 131 Insolvency Act 1967 - whether the Affidavit Verifying the Petition affirmed a day before the petition valid. 1 Bankruptcy - Appeal to Judge in Chambers - Leave to commence bankruptcy proceedings - Judgment against law firm - Order 77 r. 5(4) Rules of Court 2012 - Application for leave against alleged partner - Whether application to be made by summons in chambers or notice of Application - Rule 17 Bankruptcy Rules - Liability of partners-Partnership Act 1961,s.11 - Whether judgment debtor was partner at time cause of action accrued - Insolvency Act 1967,s. 391)(i) - Internal partnership agreement - Doctrine of privity - Whether partner liable notwithstanding internal arrangements-Whether leave properly granted. 1 Appeal to judge in Chambers- Bankruptcy Notices - Application to set aside Bankruptcy Notices were dismissed by Registrar- Section 2 Insolvency Act 1967-Section 5(3) Insolvency Act 1967-Rule 90(1) Insolvency Rules 2017-Whether leave of Court is required before commencing bankruptcy proceddings against the Judgment Debtors-Whether the judgment creditor's solicitors may sign and file the request forthe issue of the Bankcruptcy Notices (Form 35) on behlf of the Judgment Creditor-Whether requests for issue of Bankcruptcy Notice should served on the Judgment Debtors-Whether double claim in bankcruptcy proceedings against two Judgment Debtors on a single judgment is allowed-Judgment debt remains unrealized. 1 Appeal to Judge in chambers- Bankruptcy Notices- Application to set aside Bankruptcy Notices were dismissed by Registrar-Section 2 Insolvency Act 1967-Section 5(3) Insolvency Act 1967-Rule 90 (1) Insolvency Rules 2017-Whether keave of Court is required before commencing bankcruptcy proceedings against the Judgment Debtors- Whether the Judgments Creditor's solicitor may sign and file the request for the issue of the Bankcruptcy Notices (Form35) on behalf of the Judgment Creditor -Whether requests for issue of Banckruptcy Notice shpuld be served on the Judgment Debtors-Whether double claim in bankruptcy proceeding against two Judgment Debtors on a single judgment is allowed - Judgment debt remains unrealized. 1 This Grounds of Judgement is on two appeals and one application by the Judgement Debtor (JD). The first and second appeal are against the Senior Assistant Registrar dismissing the JD's application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice dated 15.1.2021 by affidavit in Enclosure 4 and by Summon in Chambers in Enclosure 10 respectively. The application is in Enclosure 149 is the application by the JD to stay these bankruptcy proceedings pending his appeal to the Court of Appeal for their main suit in Kuala Lumpur High Court. 1 Bankruptcy - Creditor's petition - Adjournment of hearing - Insolvency Rules 2017,r.19 - Mandatory requirement of service not less than eight clear days before hearing - Application to set aside creditor's petition filed and served at eleventh hour - Whether application in breach of r.19 - ought to be ignored - Abuse of process - Tactical interlocutory applications to delay hearing of creditor's petition - Whether Deputy Registrar erred in adjourning petition - Appeal against adjournment - Whether dismissal of application to set aside creditor's petition correct. 1 The Judgement Creditor obtained a Consent Judgement dated 21.1.2016 against the Judgement Debtor and issued a Bankruptcy Noticed dated 5.4.2024 against him. This Judgement is on an appeal by the JD against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar given on 9.9.2024 dismissing his application in Enclosure 5 under rule 93 of the Insolvency Rules, 2017 to set the BN aside. 1 Enclosure 17. This is an appeal (“Appeal”) against the decision of the Learned Senior Assistant Registrar’s (“SAR”) decision dismissing enclosure 4 (Enclosure 4) filed by the Judgment Debtor (“JD”) for the Notice of Bankruptcy Dated 22.4.2024 (“BN”) to be set aside on the grounds that a. the same is inter alia defective and not in accordance with the terms as specified in the Judgment b. the BN had combined 2 or more judgments 1 This Judgement is on two appeals. The first in Enclosure 47 is an appeal by the Judgement Debtor against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar given on 15.11.2024 dismissing his application in Enclosure 28 to set aside/strike out the Creditor's Petition dated 19.6.2024 and to strike out the Bankruptcy Notice dated 2.1.2024. The second in Enclosure 55 id the Judgement Creditor's appeal against the decision of SAR given on 11.12.2024 allowing the JD's application to stay the hearing of CP pending the disposal of the JD's appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgement in Kuala Lumpur High Court. 1 Bankruptcy - Appeal to Judge in Chambers -Stay of bankruptcy proceedings - Insolvency Act 1967, s, 97- Residual power of court-Applications to stay creditor's petition dismissed-Tax debt -Income tax Act 1967- "Pay now dispute later' scheme-Pending appeals to Special Commissioners of Income Tax-Whether appeal on merits constitutes sufficient reason for stay-Scope of curial non-interference in tax collection - Abuse or breakdown of tax recovery process- Whether sufficient reason shown - Whether stay of bankruptcy proceedings ought to be granted. 1 Bankruptcy-Appeal to Judge in Chamber-Application to set aside Bankruptcy Notice-Application to set aside Creditor's Petition-setting aside applications were filed pending application to set aside Judgment in Default in Session Court-application to set aside Judgement in default was dismissed in Sessions Court and High Court-whether the Bankruptcy Notice and Creditor's petition can be challange based on pending application or appeal to set aside the Judgement in Default-whether the Judgement creditor's amounts claim based on compound interest are correctly calculated. 1 Bankruptcy - Appeal to Judge in Chambers - Application for stay of bankruptcy proceedings - Stay dismissed by Deputy Registrar - Power of Court to grant stay of bankruptcy proceedings - Whether the reasoning given by Judgment debtor for stay are sufficient grounds - irreparable harm argument - Section 97 Insolvency Act - Rules 137 Insolvency Rules 2017 - Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of court 2012 - test for ' sufficient grounds' for stay - Whether bankruptcy proceedings amount to abuse. 1 Bankruptcy-Post bankruptcy-Appeal to Judge in Chamber-Further powers upon special manager over estate of Bankrupt-declaration on the remuneration of the special manager-the power under the Special Manager Order is limited-whether there is issue on res judicata-whether Special Manager whether powers of special manager need to be discussed between thee Special Manager and DGI. 1 Civil Procedure - Discovery - The plain and ordinary meaning of sections 6(1) and 31 of the Births And Deaths Registration Act 1957 (Revised 1983) Act 299 is that save for the applications for Certificates of Birth, Death or Presumed Death, any person, which would include the applicant or his solicitor, may apply in the prescribed form upon payment of the prescribed fee to have a search made in the indices or in the register kept by the Registrar General of Births and Deaths. 1 [1] Ini ialah permohonan untuk kebenaran mencelah yang difailkan oleh Pencelah (Lampiran 11). Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan Lampiran 11 dan berikut alasan atas keputusan tersebut. 1 [2] Pemohon memfailkan Saman Pemula ex-parte untuk satu perintah bahawa Surat Kuasa Mentadbir diberikan kepada Pemohon sebagai pentadbir bagi harta pusaka Sim Thiam Hock (Si Mati). Pemohon merupakan anak perempuan Si Mati manakala Pencelah ialah ibu kepada Si Mati. 1 [3] Mahkamah ini mendapati Pencelah selaku ibu Si Mati dan juga benefisiari yang berhak untuk menuntut terhadap harta pusaka Si Mati tersebut, adalah layak untuk menjadi Pentadbir Bersama atas harta pusaka Si Mati. 1 [4] Oleh yang demikian, Lampiran 11 dibenarkan dan Pemohon dan Pencelah dilantik sebagai Pentadbir Bersama bagi mentadbir harta pusaka Si Mati. 1 Family law - Application to anonymise parties - Importance of anonymising all parties in matrimonial disputes due to sensitive and private matters - Whether Application to anonymise ought to be disallowed on basis that Children are over 18 years old - Whether Application to anonymise ought to be disallowed in the name public interest - Distinction between public interest and public's interest - Whether Respondent’s position as public servant warranted such refusal of anonymity - Whether refusal to anonymise may hinder prospects of settlement - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 section 15. 1 Family law - Divorce - Division of matrimonial assets - Properties situated in France - Husband requesting for Properties in France to be divided here - Whether Court has jurisdiction - Whether Court can take judicial notice of French Property law - Whether expert opinion on foreign law should have been adduced - Whether adverse inference should be invoked - Whether Petitioner had proved how assets in France are to be divided - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 sections 76 - Evidence Act 1950 sections 45, 57 1 Family law - Divorce - Child maintenance - Guardianship and custody of Child - Whether Parties entitled to joint guardianship and joint custody - Whether Husband obligated to pay child maintenance - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 sections 92, 93 1 Family law - Divorce - Spousal maintenance - Whether Husband obligated to pay spousal maintenance - Cause of the breakdown of the marriage - Means and needs test - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 section 77, 78 1 Family law - Jurisdiction of court - Wife filing winding-up petition of company in Winding-Up Court - Both husband and wife had pleaded in their petitions for judicial separation and divorce respectively the shares of that company as matrimonial assets - Whether Family Court had jurisdiction to prevent wife from winding up company in winding up court - Whether wife had already submitted to jurisdiction of Family Court - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, section 76 1 Family law - Company law - Wife filing winding-up petition of company in Winding-Up Court - Both husband and wife had pleaded in their petitions for judicial separation and divorce respectively the shares of that company as matrimonial assets - Whether Fortuna injunction warranted to prevent wife from further proceeding in Winding-Up Court - Purpose of Fortuna Injunction - Whether there was abuse of the process of court - Companies Act 2016, sections 466, 442, 472 1 Family law - Company law - Wife filing winding-up petition of company in Winding-Up Court - Both husband and wife had pleaded in their petitions for judicial separation and divorce respectively the shares of that company as matrimonial assets - Whether quia time injunction warranted to prevent wife from further dissipating matrimonial assets until final disposal of judicial separation and divorce petition - Specific Relief Act 1950, section 50 1 Family Law – Child maintenance – Whether Husband was obligated to pay spousal/ child maintenance - Whether Wife should have sole guardianship and sole custody of the Children – Whether Husband should be granted only supervised access to the Children – Whether necessary to issue prohibition order restraining the Respondent from physically approaching Wife or from being in the same room or residence with her. 1 Family Law - Application to intervene by Proposed Intervener on behalf Co-respondent's child born out of wedlock - Application to intervene based on promises made by Respondent to provide for child - Whether child's pecuniary and proprietary interest would be affected - Whether Proposed Intervener's interest would be affected by these matrimonial proceedings - Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 rule 83 - Rules of Court 2012 order 15 rule 6 1 Family law - Petition for Judicial separation - Application for interim orders - Whether this Court had jurisdiction to hear the Petition for judicial separation and application for interim orders - Whether Petitioner had fulfilled requirement of residence - Whether the Petitioner was a resident of Malaysia at the time of filing the Judicial Separation Petition and this Application - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 sections 49 and 49 1 Application was filed by the PW against the RH - Order 52 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) - to cite for contempt, for the non-compliance with the terms of the Order dated 25 November 2024 ("the Order"), the Consequential Order dated 25 February 2025 ("the Consequential Order") and the Order dated 24 July 2025 granting a conditional partial stay ("Conditional Partial Stay") 1 Family Law - Divorce – Spousal maintenance – Whether spousal maintenance should be awarded to Wife – Whether Wife had estabslihed that Husband had caused irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Whether Wife had satisfied ‘means and needs’ test to justify amount of spousal maintenance sought – Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – sections 77, 78 1 Family Law – Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Cause of – Whether Wife’s allegations of adultery between the Petitioner and Party-Cited had been established – Whether Wife had found such adultery, if at all, intolerable – Whether Wife had established that it was Husband’s unreasonable behaviour that had caused irretrievable breakdown of the marriage – Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 sections 53, 54, 58(3) – Women’s Charter 1961 (Singapore), section 95(5) 1 Family Law – Divorce – Guardianship, custody, care and control of child and child maintenance – Whether the Husband and Wife should be granted joint guardianship and joint custody – Whether sole custody, care, and control should be awarded to the Wife – What form of access the Husband should have – Whether Husband obligated to pay child maintenance – Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – sections 88, 92, 93 – Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 – sections 3 and 5 1 Family Law – Divorce – Division of matrimonial assets – Whether both Husband and Wife entitled to a division of those assets based on their respective claimed contributions – Whether contributions of each party established – Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – section 76 1 Family law – Divorce – Breakdown of marriage – Adultery – Unreasonable behaviour – Damages against Co-Respondent – Whether Wife had proved allegations of adultery between Husband and Co-Respondent – Evaluation of evidence adduced by wife to prove adultery - Whether Husband had established that it was Wife’s unreasonable behaviour that caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage 1 Family law – Divorce – Spousal maintenance – Whether spousal maintenance should be awarded to Wife – Whether Wife had satisfied the ‘means and needs’ test 1 Family law – Divorce – Children – Guardianship, care, custody, control, maintenance – Whether Wife and Husband should be awarded joint guardianship and custody pertaining to the Children – Whether Husband obligated to pay child maintenance 1 Family law – Divorce – Matrimonial assets – Whether Wife and Husband were entitled to the division of matrimonial assets as pleaded – Extent of each other’s contribution 1 Family law – Application by wife to vary consent order - Whether there had been material change in circumstances to justify allowing this Application - Whether a consent order may be varied - Whether the Children should be interviewed. 1 [23] Lastly, this Court also found no merits as to the Defendant’s argument that there was a delay in the application. There is no legal requirement that such execution proceedings must be commenced immediately after having secured the enforcement order. 1 [24] The Defendant was at liberty to address the Ex Parte Show Cause Order dated 29.10.2024 at the hearing fixed for the show cause. Instead, the Defendant opted to apply to set aside the said order, a procedural choice which this Court does not find to be justified on the facts before it. 1 [25] In dismissing the Defendant’s appeal against the SAR’s decision dated 22.8.2025 to dismiss the Defendant’s application to set aside the said SAR’s decision granted on 29.10.2024, this Court granted an order for costs of RM10,000.00 to the Plaintiff. 1 1. The Judgment Creditor (JC) applied for and obtained a garnishee Order against Pusat Rawatan Islam Az-Zahrah Sdn Bhd (“the Garnishee”) from the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR). 1 2. The Garnishee applies by way of appeal to a “judge in Chambers” to set aside the Garnishee Order. Introduction 1 13. The appeal by the Garnishees against the order of the SAR is allowed and the Garnishee Order is therefore set aside with a cost of RM3,000 against the 1st garnishee and no order for cost against the other Garnishees. 1 Enclosure 26. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Garnishee proceedings in relation to construction contract; Garnishee order nisi; Garnishee order absolute; Whether the debt due or accruing due under Order 49 Rules of Court 2012; whether the amount claimed by the Judgement creditor from the garnishee is a crystallised actionable debt; whether Retention sum is part of debt due; Effect of non-participation of judgment debtor; 1 Section 4(7) of the Debtors Act 1957-Order 74 Rules 12 and 13 ROC-The Debtors Act 1957 together with Order 74 ROC regulates the execution of a money judgment against a judgment debtor and also provides remedies for preventing a defendant from absconding and disposing of his property to frustrate the legal process and judgment that may be thereby made against him-execution of a money judgment against a judgment debtor, there is a 2-step process-Firstly, a Judgment debtor summons is issued pursuant to section 4(1) of the Debtors Act 1957 by a judgment creditor to obtain a Judgment debtor summons order under section 4(6) of the Debtors Act 1957-Secondly, a Judgment Notice is issued pursuant to section 4(7) of the Debtors Act 1957 read with Order 74 rule 12 ROC to enforce the Judgment debtor summons order under Order 74 rule 14 ROC by an order of commitment to prison for having disobeyed the Judgment debtor summons order-The Debtors Act 1957 section 4(7) provides that if the judgment debtor makes default in payment according to any court order made upon hearing of the judgment debtor summons under section 4(6), a notice in the form prescribed by rules of court may be issued on the request of the judgment creditor, calling upon the judgment debtor to attend before the court at the time therein and show cause why he should not be committed to prison for such default-Order 74 ROC provides the procedure and forms of request to be used by the judgment creditor for notice (referred to as “judgment notice”) to be issued to the judgment debtor for attending before the court to show cause under section 4(7) Debtors Act 1957. Order 74 rule 13 ROC prescribes the form of such judgment notice-if there is non-compliance with a JDS Order by a corporation, there is no provision under section 4(7) Debtors Act 1957 to summon and commit an officer of that corporation to prison, more so a person who is no longer an officer of that corporation. Section 4(7) Debtors Act 1957 as drafted is applicable only to a human debtor-Section 4(7) Debtors Act being a penal section must be construed strictly-the JC may initiate contempt proceedings against the directors of the JD for not paying the judgment sum provided all procedural requirements have been complied with-burden of proof-pursuant to Section 208(3) of the Companies Act 2016 -Jaimie’s resignation is effective on 10-06-2024 when his resignation letter dated 10-06-2024-delivered to the Company Secretaries-It is the duty of the Company Secretaries of the JD to update the registry of the CCM on Jaimie’s resignation within 14 days from the date of resignation. [See: section 58(1)(c) Companies Act] 1 MPOB appealed the dismissal of its application to intervene in execution proceedings and stay a Writ of Seizure and Sale against Used Cooking Oil (UCO) it had seized in 2020. The judgment creditors sought to execute their default judgment for unpaid storage costs. MPOB applied to intervene one day before execution, claiming the UCO required preservation for criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding: (1) execution proceedings lack jurisdiction for intervention applications; (2) MPOB failed to establish legal interest, having only commercial interests; (3) procedural violations including wrong timing and forum; and (4) MPOB was estopped by contradictory conduct, having previously attempted to sell the same UCO in 2021. The Court held that post-judgment intervention undermines litigation finality and no special circumstances warranted staying execution. 1 Execution proceedings, post-judgment intervention, stay of execution - Order 15 Rule 6, Order 17, Order 47 Rule 1 - Writ of Seizure and Sale - contradictory conduct - abuse of process 1 Criminal Justice - Interim Protection order (IPO) involving a child issued by the magistrate was set aside ex parte without hearing father of the child and the Welfare Department - appeal allowed - IPO reinstated - new magistrate to rehear the application to set aside the IPO afresh - breach of audi alteram partum rule. 1 Criminal Justice - appeal against sentence allowed - reduction of sentence - principle of proportionality when sentencing accused not followed by sessions court judge. 1 gang robbery-facts and circumstances of the commission of the crime-whether plea of guilt a mitigating factor 1 Previous conviction-enhancement of sentence sec.39C- whether prejudicial to accused as amounting to twice punished for same offence 1 Criminal Justice - appeal against inadequacy of sentence - order of binding over by magistrate - affirmed on appeal save for variation of the bond period - factors such as plea of guilty at once; delay in prosecution of the appeal taken into consideration - sentence meted out is fair, reasonable and proportional to the criminal conduct of the defendant. 1 Criminal Procedure - Appeal against sentence - Offences of statutory rape under Penal Code and Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 - Whether sentences were manifestly excessive - Sessions Court imposed consecutive sentences to run from date of conviction - Appeal for sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently from date of arrest - One transaction rule - Appeal allowed in part for the imprisonment sentences to run concurrently 1 Criminal procedure - Appeal - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - S.39A(2) - Appellant arrested after behaving suspiciously during routine crime prevention rounds - Alleged he fell and lost consciousness after motorcycle collided with police - Whether drugs found in Appellant's left socks and on carrier of the motorcycle - Whether break in chain of evidence - Short videos of arrest incident tendered by defence witness - Whether videos supported defence version - Sessions Court found defence did not raise any reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence affirmed - Appeal dismissed 1 Criminal Justice - offence under section 31 (1) (a) of the Child Act 2001 (Act 611) - mother neglecting her child who had fallen from a height of 18th Floor of a Condominium - finding of guilty, conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) is safe - all ingredients of offence proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt - appellate intervention is unjustified - appeal by accused dismissed - accused to serve sentence of imprisonment as ordered. 1 immigration procedure-pass validly issued in old passport-new passport acquired-application for asylum to UNHCR-whether persons of concern and effect of recognition by UNHCR 1 The following constitute my rationale in deciding this matter whereby I dismissed the notice of motion filed by the accused dated 10/04/2025 to lodge an appeal out of time. Aggrieved with my decision, the accused person being the applicant lodged a notice of appeal dated 24/06/2025 to the Court of Appeal regarding my said decision. Premised on the rationale stated above, it is my well contemplated view that the accused person being the applicant in this matter had failed to satisfy the legal requirements of section 310 Criminal Procedure Code for a leave to appeal out of time and accordingly her prayers in notice of motion dated 10/04/2025 is dismissed. 1 Ini adalah satu permohonan untuk mendapatkan Writ of Habeas Corpus oleh Pemohon yang telah ditahan di Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Bintulu, Sarawak untuk tempoh dua tahun melalui satu perintah bertarikh 06.03.2025 yang dikeluarkan oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri (TMDN) di bawah seksyen 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 (Akta) mulai dari tarikh yang sama. 1 Di dalam kes ini, Pemohon telah menimbulkan isu-isu berikut: 1 3.1. Pelanggaran terhadap prinsip keadilan asasi (natural justice) dalam proses penghasilan laporan lengkap siasatan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat di bawah seksyen 3(3) Akta; 1 3.2. Kelewatan selama 15 hari oleh Pegawai Siasatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri dalam mengemukakan laporan wajib di bawah seksyen 5(4) Akta tersebut kepada Menteri Dalam Negeri; dan 1 3.3. Wujudnya ketidakpatuhan terhadap peruntukan di bawah seksyen 6(1) Akta tersebut dibaca Bersama seksyen 54(2) Akta Tafsiran 1948 dan 1967 akibat kelewatan selama 23 hari oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri dalam mengeluarkan perintah tahanan tehadap Pemohon. 1 Sebagai kesimpulan, saya mendapati bahawa terdapat merit dalam permohon ini di mana wujudnya pelanggaran terhadap prinsip keadilan asasi terhadap Pemohon. Oleh yang demikian, permohonan Writ of Habeas Corpus Pemohon adalah dibenarkan. 1 The following constitute my rationale in deciding this matter whereby upon plea of guilty, I sentenced the accused person to an imprisonment term of twelve (12) years from the date of arrest on the alternative charge under section 12 (2) of the DDA 1952 [Act 234] (DDA) and punishable under section 39A(2) of the same Act. Aggrieved with my decision, the accused person lodged a notice of appeal dated 20th of May 2025 pertaining to the sentence only. 1 Through his learned counsel, the accused person submitted the plea of mitigation primarily on personal factors for this Court’s judicial consideration. 1 Premised on the rationale stated, it is my pondered judgment that the accused person be sentenced to an imprisonment term of 12 years from the date of arrest on the alternative charge under section 12 (2) of the DDA 1952 [Act 234] and punishable under section 39A(2) of the same Act. No order of whipping to be imposed upon the accused person due his age (52 years old) in consonance with section 289(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code which bars whipping on male offenders more than 50 years old with exception to those convicted under the Penal Code and Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 for offences that permits for whipping under those laws. Clearly, DDA is not under those exceptions. Sentence so ordered. 1 Criminal Justice - offences of drug trafficking - involving large quantity of cannabis found with the accused - mens rea possession proved beyond reasonable doubt - accused unable to tilt balance of probabilities in favor of him to rebut the presumption of trafficking invoked against him - found guilty, convicted - sentenced to a period of thirty years pursuant to section 39B (2) of the DDA 1952. 1 Criminal Justice - offence of drug trafficking - defence of innocent carrier - accepted by court - credible explanation to rebut presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities - no iota of evidence to link accused persons with the dangerous drugs - mere transporters for the employer - employer and owner of car not called - adverse inference drawn against prosecution - accused persons acquitted and discharged. 1 Criminal Justice - offence of drug trafficking - accused acquitted and discharged at the end of prosecution case - case of prosecution disclose more than one version - failure to investigate version of the accused disclosed in police reports made - raiding officer did not make full and frank disclosure to investigation officer of case - adverse inference drawn. 1 Criminal Justice - offence of drug trafficking - two accused persons charged - in furtherance of their common intention - drugs found in a borrowed car - accused persons were in momentary possession of the car - owner of the car as well as the individual who lent the car not called as witnesses - adverse inference drawn - second accused unfairly charged as she was merely ferried by the first accused to HKL - clear disclosure at point of arrest - but claim not investigated into - benefit of the doubt to be given to the accused persons - both acquitted and discharged at close of the case of prosecution. 1 Criminal Justice - drug trafficking offence - mens rea possession proven - presumption of trafficking invoked - accused unable to raise a reasonable doubt on mens rea possession - able to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities - left accused found only to be in passive possession - no overt act on part of the accused - prematurely arrested before transfer of possession of dangerous drug - found guilty and convicted for offence of drug possession. 1 Criminal Justice - offences of drug trafficking and drug possession - acquittal at the end of case of prosecution for offences of drug trafficking - accused ordered to defend himself for the charge of drug possession - defence of innocent carrier successfully raised - sufficient and good alcontara notice given to the raiding and investigating officer of the case but not investigated into - benefit of doubt favours the accused - offends the right to fair trial of the accused person. 1 Criminal Justice - offence of drug trafficking by two accused persons with common intention - acquittal of second accused at conclusion of trial as no proof of common intention beyond reasonable doubt - first accused convicted on a lesser offence of drug possession - defence raised on the existence of another individual who was the actual trafficker - application of the Radhi principle - sentenced accordingly. 1 Criminal Justice - offence of drug trafficking - proven beyond reasonable doubt - accused unable to rebut presumption of trafficking - application of the doctrine of willful blindness to prove knowledge on the part of accused of the impugned drugs - accused convicted and sentenced to imprisonment - principle of proportionality adhered to. 1 This decision is regarding an appeal lodged by the accused person against my decision given on the 21st of May 2025 and it concerns about the sentence meted out by this court. 1 Essentially, the criminal charges were read out to the accused person in Mandarin language and all the safeguards under section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was duly satisfied. The charge was read and explained to him and he pleaded guilty after understanding the nature and consequences of his plea of guilty without any qualification or reservation. 1 The main consideration in sentencing is no doubt the public interest element to reflect on the deterrence concept and to serve as a lesson to the accused person. 1 Despite the plea of guilty by the accused person preventing the need for trial and his personal factors, I must agree that drug offences are of serious nature which calls for deterrence through the sentence of the court. 1 Based on the reasons above, the accused person to be sentenced to an imprisonment term of ten (10) years from the date of arrest (8/2/2023) and 10 strokes of whipping on the alternative charge and for the second amended charge, imprisonment term of eight (8) years from the date of arrest (8/2/2023) and 10 strokes of whipping. Both imprisonment terms to run concurrently. 1 alternative charge of possession- drugs ready for use-no explanation drugs for use for what purpose-sentence passed within perimeters permitted 1 Criminal Justice - offence of drug trafficking - acquittal at close of prosecution case - accused persons were mere guests at the condominium unit - absence of proof of tenancy - production of out of court statement by agent insufficient to prove the fact in issue on tenancy - defense advanced that the accused persons were merely guests prevails - non calling of witness who had access to the premises, also arrested - adverse inference drawn against prosecution. 1 Criminal Justice - offence of drug trafficking - accused ordered to defend himself on a reduced charge for an offence of drug possession - accused testified - successful in raising a reasonable doubt on the case of prosecution - cumulative effect of contradictions, inconsistencies of the wavering testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses - who were accomplices of the crime - accused unfairly charged - in momentary possession of the impugned drugs without knowing content of the bag he was asked to hold. 1 Criminal Justice - offence of drug trafficking - acquittal at the end of case of prosecution - First accused (deceased) led to raiding team to premises - also tenant - Second and Third Accused merely present at the said premises - mens rea possession not proven - presumption of trafficking cannot be invoked. 1 Criminal Justice - offence of murder - wife was killed - invocation of the doctrine of last person seen and been together - no plausible explanation rendered by accused - inference of guilt - presumption of guilt operates against him - chain of circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution - accused convicted and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. 1 Seksyen 304 (a) Kanun Keseksaan - OKT telah mengaku salah terhadap pertuduhan - dijatuhkan hukuman penjara tujuh (7) tahun 1 sek.130Q Kanun Keseksaan- pengakuan salah- 2 tarikh kejadian berlaku beberapa tahun sebelum tangkapan-ditangkap terdahulu dan terkini-bila hukuman penjara bermula- pertimbangan atas mitigasi tertuduh 1 Kanun Keseksaan - Kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah s.130J(1)(a) dan s.130JB(1)(a) - Tertuduh mengaku salah sebelum perbicaraan - Rayuan dan mitigasi hukuman - Hujahan pemberat TPR - Tertuduh bukan pesalah kali pertama - Rekod sabitan lampau untuk 4 kesalahan di bawah s.130JB(1)(a) Kanun Keseksaan - Sentencing trends - Pertimbangan Mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman penjara - Rayuan terhadap hukuman 1