Practice Areas
235 areas of law across Malaysia court judgments, each with at least 3 reported decisions.
📊 View Busiest Practice Areas Rankings →Civil procedure
180cases
Contract
60cases
Company law
44cases
Criminal Law
43cases
Criminal Procedure
38cases
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review
36cases
Conclusion
31cases
Abstract
31cases
Keywords
31cases
Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
28cases
Evidence
27cases
Introduction
25cases
Tort
24cases
Criminal Justice
23cases
Rayuan jenayah
22cases
Arbitration
21cases
Family Law
21cases
Prosedur jenayah
21cases
Appeal
20cases
Undang-undang jenayah
20cases
Full trial
19cases
Judicial Review
18cases
Land Law
16cases
Bankruptcy
15cases
Prosedur Sivil
15cases
Civil appeal
15cases
Striking out
15cases
Post Winding Up
15cases
Appeal against conviction and sentence
14cases
Administrative Law
13cases
Constitutional law
13cases
Perbicaraan penuh
13cases
Undang-undang
13cases
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial Review
13cases
Damages
12cases
Criminal Appeal
12cases
Criminal Trial
12cases
Contract law
11cases
Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan
11cases
Rayuan
11cases
Appeal after full trial
10cases
Summary judgment
10cases
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship
10cases
Originating summons
10cases
Winding up
9cases
rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman
9cases
seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama
9cases
Semakan kehakiman
9cases
Interlocutory application
9cases
Seksyen 26A Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 (ATIPSOM)
9cases
"Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta 234
9cases
Breach of contract
8cases
INSURANCE: Third party risks insurance policy
8cases
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.
8cases
INSURANCE: Statutory presumption of liability under section 109(2) of the Road Transport Act 1987.
8cases
INSURANCE: Third party rights against insurer
8cases
INSURANCE: Statutory protection to road accident victims
8cases
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.
8cases
Defamation
8cases
Rayuan Sivil
8cases
Practice and procedure
8cases
Issues
8cases
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Appeal
8cases
Construction Law
7cases
Equity
7cases
Rujukan Tanah
7cases
Legal Profession
6cases
Companies and Corporations
6cases
Dangerous Drugs
6cases
WTK REALTY SDN. BHD. … APPELLANT (COMPANY NO. 74536-H)
6cases
AND
6cases
1. KATHRYN MA WAI FONG 2. SOUTHWIND PLANTATION SDN. BHD. … RESPONDENTS
6cases
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
6cases
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal
6cases
HDA 1976
6cases
Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB) dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama
6cases
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.
6cases
Judgment after trial
6cases
Winding Up Petition
6cases
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
6cases
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.
6cases
Permohonan jenayah
6cases
Perbicaraan jenayah
6cases
Keterangan
6cases
"Sek 39B (1)(a) Akta 234
6cases
Bicara penuh jenayah
6cases
Seksyen 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009
6cases
Tort : Defamation
5cases
Banking
5cases
-
5cases
Rayuan oleh lima perayu terhadap tuduhan pindaan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan KK dibaca bersama seksyen 34 KK kerana melakukan kesalahan bunuh.
5cases
Jenayah
5cases
Negligence
5cases
Fortuna injunction
5cases
Saman Pemula
5cases
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)
5cases
seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017
5cases
UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti
5cases
COMPANY LAW: Winding up
5cases
Injunction
5cases
Land acquisition
5cases
Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
5cases
Pertuduhan
5cases
allegations of undue preference, premised on voluntary settlements said to have been made without valuable consideration and not in good faith
5cases
Keputusan
5cases
Prima facie case
5cases
“Sek 39B Akta 234
5cases
Brief facts
5cases
Section 28 CIPAA
5cases
REVENUE LAW: Income tax
4cases
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.
4cases
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.
4cases
Evidence : Burden of proof
4cases
Duty of appellate court on facts finding by the trial judge
4cases
COMPANIES
4cases
Limitation
4cases
Contempt of Court
4cases
Banking Law
4cases
Kontrak
4cases
Tatacara Sivil
4cases
CIVIL PROCEDURE : Injunction
4cases
Kanun Tatacara Jenayah
4cases
res judicata
4cases
Hukuman
4cases
The Core Issues
4cases
Land Reference
4cases
Permohonan Habeas Corpus
4cases
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman
4cases
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
4cases
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
4cases
Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952
4cases
Sentencing
4cases
Insolvency
4cases
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.
4cases
Bicara penuh
4cases
Exercise of discretion by trial cart
4cases
JENAYAH: Seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1950
4cases
Undang-Undang Tanah
4cases
Prima Facie
4cases
Defence
4cases
Seksyen 26B(d) Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Anti Penyeludupan Migran 2007 (Akta 670) dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan
4cases
"Rayuan ke atas sabitan dan hukuman
4cases
Minority Oppression
4cases
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.
4cases
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.
4cases
Held:
4cases
Plaintiffs (insured) seek a declaration that the defendant (insurer) is liable to indemnity them under fire policy and consequential loss policy
4cases
Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 Akta 234
4cases
discovery application
4cases
section 304(a) of the Penal Code read together with section 34 of same Act
4cases
LEGAL PROFESSION: Advocates and solicitors
4cases
ABSTRAK
4cases
Islamic Banking
4cases
(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a).
4cases
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.
4cases
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.
4cases
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.
4cases
Land Acquisition Act 1960
3cases
Civil
3cases
Trade Marks
3cases
Locus standi
3cases
Building and Construction Law
3cases
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
3cases
habeas corpus
3cases
Appeal against Assessment
3cases
Pengenalan
3cases
Striking out application
3cases
DAN
3cases
statutory interpretation
3cases
Appeal against decision of High Court
3cases
Kanun Tanah Negara 1965
3cases
CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption
3cases
Whether sale and purchase of land transactions were sham transactions- Whether illegal moneylending transactions were disguised as genuine sale and purchase transactions
3cases
Medical Negligence
3cases
Permohonan jaminan Mahkamah sementara menunggu perbicaraan kes
3cases
Interlocutory appeal
3cases
Sale and Purchase Agreement
3cases
Land Acquisition Act 1960. Whether a new and different Private Valuation Report can be adduce at the land reference proceedings at the High Court.
3cases
EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of Proof
3cases
The Core Issue
3cases
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out
3cases
CONTRACT: Breach of contract
3cases
Interim injunction
3cases
O18
3cases
Interlocutory injunction
3cases
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.
3cases
Kemas Maju has failed to establish Section 15(b) of the CIPAA 2012.
3cases
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.
3cases
The Prevailing Issue
3cases
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
3cases
Prosedur jenayah-sama ada laporan polis dibuat oleh tertuduh pertama selepas dokumen diterima menurut seksyen 51A Kanun Prosedur Jenayah diterima sebagai pembelaan tertuduh pertama
3cases
Pertuduhan bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952
3cases
Unjust enrichment
3cases
Assessment of damages
3cases
Transfer of Proceedings
3cases
Outcome
3cases
Rasuah
3cases
Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B, seksyen 12(2), seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan Akta Racun 1952
3cases
Section 96(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987
3cases
Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
3cases
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.
3cases
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.
3cases
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.
3cases
4. Costs in the cause.
3cases
INSOLVENSI
3cases
Pembelaan
3cases
Insurance
3cases
Appeal to Judge in Chambers
3cases
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
3cases
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.
3cases
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.
3cases
"Seksyen 39B Akta 234
3cases
Whether Native Customary Right proven by the plaintiff
3cases
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.
3cases
Pegawai Awam
3cases
Mandamus
3cases
deemed retirement
3cases
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery
3cases
Order 14 Rule 1, Rules of Court 2012
3cases
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment
3cases
CONTRACT LAW: Settlement agreements
3cases
Judgment after Full-Trial
3cases
19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 19)
3cases
(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-
3cases
KATA KUNCI
3cases
(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;
3cases
Whether Statement 1, particularly those in bold dated 20.2.2019 has been distributed and/ or caused to be distributed by Carol?
3cases
Enclosure 1. CONSTRUCTION LAW
3cases
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.
3cases
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.
3cases
Stay of adjudication decision
3cases
Originating Summons. CIPAA. Stay of Adjudication Decision. Setting Aside Adjudication Decision. Interim Stay of Adjudication Decision. Enforce Adjudication Decision.
3cases
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.
3cases
COMPANY LAW: Oppression
3cases
Admiralty
3cases