Cosmopolitan Avenue Sdn Bhd v Khong Yao Han & 57 Lagi (kesemua menyaman dalam kapasiti peribadi dan juga sebagai wakil kepada kesemua lima puluh lapan (58) pembeli-pembeli unit-unit kediaman dalam projek pembangunan komersial yang dikenali sebagai “Empire City, Damansara”, dibina di atas HS(D) 222401, PT No. 44017 dan HS(D) 222400, PT No. 44016 dua-dua in Mukim Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan) (and Another Appeal) [2024] 7 AMR 721, CA

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Purchasers claimed liquidated ascertained damages against developer for invalid delivery of vacant possession ("VP") – Architect allegedly negligent and caused unlawful interference in issuing partial certificate of completion and compliance ("partial CCC") – Developer's and architect's application to strike out purchasers' claim dismissed – Whether prima facie case of negligence and/or unlawful interference established against architect – Whether architect owed duty of care to ensure purchasers obtain VP within stipulated time – Whether there were triable issues as to interpretation of sale and purchase agreements and propriety of VP delivery based on partial CCC – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19

Parminder Kaur a/p Kamiker Singh & Anor v Pendakwa Raya [2024] 7 AMR 743, CA

Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Revision – Appellants convicted for offence under s 471 of the Penal Code ("Code") and punished under s 467 in relation to Form 14A of First Schedule to the National Land Code – Court of Appeal maintained conviction but reduced imprisonment sentence – Whether punishment for conviction of offence under in s 471 of the Code should be under s 465 instead as stated in charge – Whether appellants convicted and sentenced under defective charge – Whether Public Prosecutor required to prove ingredients of punishment provision for offence under s 471 of the Penal Code – Whether revision ought to be allowed – National Land Code, s 215, Form 14A, First Schedule – Penal Code, ss 30, 465, 466, 467, 471

Public Prosecutor v Ramesh a/l Rajaratnam [2024] 7 AMR 760, CA

Criminal procedure – Judgment and orders – Review and setting aside of – Appeal against – High Court ("HC") set aside Sessions Court's ("SC") decision as its grounds of decision ("GD") was a complete reproduction of prosecution's submission and did not contain reasoning for its decision – Accused acquitted and discharged – Whether HC could reverse trial court's decision merely due to errors or omission in trial court's GD – Whether HC committed an error/omission in discharging and acquitting accused without considering merit of appeal – Whether breach of accused's right to trial and appeal justify his acquittal – Whether options available to Court of Appeal under s 60(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1967 – Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, s 188(2)(a), (4) – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 60(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 173(f), (m), 180, 182A, 316, 422, 422(a) – Federal Constitution, Article 5(1)

Exsim Suria Sdn Bhd v Southern Perk Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [2024] 7 AMR 801, HC

Civil procedure – Parties – Intervention – Application by proposed intervener to be made defendant – Suit for injunction filed by purchaser of land – Applicant sought to intervene on ground of direct legal interest in said land – Applicant personally guaranteed credit facilities granted to landowner – Whether applicant established direct legal interest in suit – Whether applicant's presence necessary under Order 15 r 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether application ought to be allowed – Rules of Court 2012, Order 15 r 6

Syaiful Amri bin Matimbang (suing as the husband and lawful dependent to Yulma binti Abdul Gafar, deceased) & 5 Ors v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2024] 7 AMR 808, HC

Damages (General) – Negligence – Claim against local authorities – Large tree branch fell on deceased on private land with public access – Deceased's family filed suit against Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur ("DBKL") and landowner on ground of negligence – Trial proceeded only against DBKL on liability and claim for aggravated and exemplary damages – Whether DBKL owes statutory duty to members of public for maintenance of trees wholly on private land with public access – Whether deceased's family entitled to exemplary damages – Local Government Act 1976, ss 2, 101(cc)(i)

Local authorities – Negligence – Damages – Claim against local authorities – Large tree branch fell on deceased on private land with public access – Deceased's family filed suit against Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur ("DBKL") and landowner on ground of negligence – Trial proceeded only against DBKL on liability and claim for aggravated and exemplary damages – Whether DBKL owes statutory duty to members of public for maintenance of trees wholly on private land with public access – Whether deceased's family entitled to exemplary damages – Local Government Act 1976, ss 2, 101(cc)(i)

Tan Tiang Huat & Anor v Lim Yee Hui & Anor [2024] 7 AMR 818, HC

Civil procedure – Courts – Transfer of proceedings – Application to transfer suit from Penang High Court to Kuala Lumpur High Court – Allegation of conspiracy by defendants to injure plaintiffs for operating café in Kuala Lumpur with similar business to company's café in Penang – Whether application ought to be allowed – Whether cause of action arose in Penang or Kuala Lumpur – Whether cause of action in original statement of claim ought to be considered predominant over that in counterclaim – Whether transferring suit to Kuala Lumpur more convenient, appropriate and fair – Whether court had jurisdiction and was proper forum to hear suit – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 23(1) – Companies Act 2016, ss 347, 348 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 57 r 1(4)

Twinkle v Pendakwa Raya [2024] 7 AMR 830, HC

Criminal law – Carrying offensive weapons in public – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Description of weapon in search list differed from item produced in court – Whether any doubt in identity of weapons – Whether any break in chain of evidence – Whether weapons found in accused's possession while in a public place – Whether Sessions Court judge failed to consider accused's defence – Whether sentence excessive – Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958, s 6(1)