Kamaludin bin Md. Said

On the judicial record

Shows a Court of Appeal judge engaging across medical negligence including the thin-skull rule, contract construction, leave to sue a liquidator under the Companies Act 2016, murder under the Penal Code, and anti-dumping judicial review.

Kamaludin bin Md. Said sits in the Court of Appeal, and this collection captures the wide civil and criminal range of intermediate appellate review. Medical negligence is a notable strand: an appeal on complications following an arthroscopy where the patient suffered a popliteal-artery injury, and an appeal applying the egg-shell skull, or thin-skull, rule to a claim arising from the management of a placenta praevia and a caesarean section. Contract features through the principles for construing an agreement where its terms are ambiguous or contradictory. Company and insolvency law is engaged in an appeal on whether leave of court is required to commence proceedings against a court-appointed liquidator under section 486(2) of the Companies Act 2016. Revenue law appears through the Income Tax Act 1967, and matrimonial property through the distribution of the matrimonial home under section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Criminal appeals engage murder under section 302 of the Penal Code, including the defence of insanity and the treatment of circumstantial and expert evidence. Public law features through judicial review of the imposition of anti-dumping duties, and defamation through whether statements in a statement of defence attract absolute privilege and whether a trial judge may restrict that defence. Because the Court of Appeal sits in panels and its rulings bind or guide the courts below, these decisions reflect collective reasoning to which this judge contributed. Private individuals are referred to by role; corporate, governmental and statutory parties are named. A recurring theme is the appellate court's testing of whether the trial court correctly applied the governing principle — of causation, of construction, of the criminal burden — before it will intervene, and its reluctance to disturb findings of fact that were open on the evidence. The collection shows how a single appellate judge engages across medical negligence, contract, revenue and crime, and how the same standard of review runs through each of them.