Kerajaan Malaysia v LFL Sdn Bhd (and Another Appeal) [2025] 1 AMR 1, FC

Civil procedure – Courts – Jurisdiction – Malaysian non-governmental organisation ("NGO") published statement that death penalty in Singapore unlawful and brutal – Correction direction issued by Singapore under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 ("POFMA") – Non-compliance of correction direction – High Court struck out NGO's actions against Malaysian government and Singapore's Minister of Home Affairs – Court of Appeal reversed High Court's decision – Whether Singapore's minister enjoyed state immunity – Whether Malaysian courts competent to adjudicate merits of suit filed against Singapore's minister – Whether POFMA enforceable in Malaysia – Whether Singapore's extra territorial enforcement of its laws could be summarily decided – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Federal Constitution, Article 10(1)(a) – Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Singapore), ss 11, 15

Civil procedure – Striking out – Application for – Malaysian non-governmental organisation ("NGO") published statement that death penalty in Singapore unlawful and brutal – Correction direction issued by Singapore under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 ("POFMA") – Non-compliance of correction direction – High Court struck out NGO's actions against Malaysian government and Singapore's Minister of Home Affairs – Court of Appeal reversed High Court's decision – Whether Singapore's minister enjoyed state immunity – Whether Malaysian courts competent to adjudicate merits of suit filed against Singapore's minister – Whether POFMA enforceable in Malaysia – Whether Singapore's extra territorial enforcement of its laws could be summarily decided – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Federal Constitution, Article 10(1)(a) – Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Singapore), ss 11, 15

Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Khairuanuar bin Baharuddin (and Another Appeal) [2025] 1 AMR 24, FC

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Appeal against – Murder conviction substituted with culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Absence of evidence of premeditation or pre-existing malice – Death sentence substituted with 10 years' imprisonment – Deceased was two year old step-daughter of accused – Death due to blunt force trauma – Whether injuries intentionally inflicted on deceased – Whether sufficient to attract application of s 300(c) of the Penal Code – Whether pre-meditation and pre-existing malice mandatory to establish murder under s 302 – Whether notice of alibi filed by accused reliable – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Penal Code, ss 300, Exceptions 2, 4, 300(c), 302, 304(b)

Netflix Sdn Bhd v United Industries Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 AMR 46, HC

Contract – Agreement – Breach – Two pieces of land sold to purchaser – Original substation under seller's name continued to supply electricity to said lands pending instalment of new substation – Purchaser installed new submeter to record electricity consumed by its lands – Disputes on amount of electricity consumed, owed and payable – Seller demanded outstanding charges due to variance between original Tenaga Nasional Berhad's bill and purchaser's submeter readings – Whether seller entitled to outstanding electricity charges – Whether parties agreed on methodology to calculate electricity charges – Whether seller's claim timebarred – Limitation Act 1953, s 26(2)

Ng Chong Sit (beramal atas nama dan gaya Tetuan Perkhidmatan Perunding Utara) v Lim Chong Seng (beramal atas nama dan gaya Tetuan Perunding GD) [2025] 1 AMR 64, HC

Contract – Agreement – Fee-sharing agreement – Breach of – Term note reflected parties' agreement on equal sharing of consulting fee – Arrangement in term note revised to 25%:75%, allegedly under duress – Whether contract breached – Whether fee-sharing agreement valid – Whether economic duress proved – Whether suit and/or counterclaim ought to be allowed – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012

Pembinaan Bina Bumi Sdn Bhd v Granstep Development Sdn Bhd (and 2 Other Originating Summonses) [2025] 1 AMR 97, HC

Contract – Adjudication and payment dispute – Adjudication decision – Setting aside, stay and enforcement applications – Whether adjudication of payment claim being interim in nature beyond jurisdiction under Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA 2012") – Whether claimant "unpaid party" under s 4 of the CIPAA 2012 – Whether principles of natural justice breached – Whether material defence considered by adjudicator – Whether adjudication decision should be set aside – Whether applications ought to be allowed – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss 4, 13(c), 15, 15(d), 16(1)(a), 25(a), 28(1), (2)