Ching Suet Yeen v Lee Hock Teong [2025] 1 AMR 113, CA

Family law – Divorce – Petition – Dismissal of application for rehearing of petition – Appeal against – Wife absent during hearing – Appellant's appeal to Court of Appeal and application to set aside High Court order withdrawn ("encl 42") – Challenge to lawyer's authority in withdrawal of encl 42 – Whether High Court judge's approach and reasoning erroneous – Whether application for rehearing had merit – Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, rules 44, 50(5) – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 53, 61(2)(b), 103

Empire Holdings Ltd (Seychelles Company) v Ithmaar Development Company Ltd & 4 Ors [2025] 1 AMR 121, CA

Civil procedure – Disposal of case on point of law – Application for – Appeal against High Court's dismissal of application under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 – Civil suit commenced in United Kingdom ("UK") following loan default by plaintiff – UK judgment registered in Kuala Lumpur High Court – Failure to comply with judgments led to company's charged shares sold to third defendant – Assertion of no case to answer – Unless order enforced following plaintiff's failure to produce main witness – Whether plaintiff established valid case in law and discharged its burden of proof – Whether unless order correctly enforced – Whether sale of shares lawful – Whether third defendant bona fide purchaser by acquisition of shares – Whether enforcement of UK judgment time-barred – Whether defendants acted within rights under contractual agreements in selling the shares – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, ss 217, 357 – Evidence Act 1950, s 101 – Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14A, Order 33 r 2, Order 45

Transferwise Ltd v Public Bank Berhad [2025] 1 AMR 150, CA

Intellectual property – Trademark – Registration – Appeal against – Dismissal of application to partially revoke registered trademark for non-use – Appellant rendered services in Malaysia under registered trademarks through wholly-owned subsidiary – Whether appellant had locus standi to file application – Whether appellant aggrieved party under s 46 of the Trademarks Act 2019 – Whether non-use of trademark established – Whether application ought to be allowed – Trademarks Act 2019, s 46, 46(1)(a), (4)

Demurni Sdn Bhd v Zuihaimi bin Ismail [2025] 1 AMR 174, HC

Civil procedure – Summary judgment – Application for – Consent order obtained against company for settlement of outstanding judgment debt – Personal guarantee by company's director to ensure payment – Failure to comply with consent order led to suit filed against director and application under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether case suitable to be disposed of summarily – Whether director obligated to pay balance of outstanding sum – Contracts Act 1950, ss 79, 80, 81 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14A

Mohammad Hussein v Pendakwa Raya [2025] 1 AMR 185, HC

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Rape – Sentence of 17 years' imprisonment and three strokes of whipping imposed – Appeal against – Victim was accused's stepdaughter – Victim 10 years and 9 months at time offence committed – Accused denied raping victim – Whether victim concocted allegation – Trial judge found appellant failed to raise reasonable doubt in prosecution case – Whether sentences imposed manifestly excessive warranting appellate intervention – Penal Code, ss 376(1), 376B – Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017, ss 26, 27

Phang Yeong Hau v Click Internet Traffic Sdn Bhd & 4 Ors [2025] 1 AMR 193, HC

Company law – Directors – Liability – Allegations of fraudulent investment scheme involving click subscription plan against company – Claim for return of investment monies – Suit instituted against investors including plaintiff ("suit 100") struck out – Whether defendants made representations alleged in inducing plaintiff to invest – Whether fraud committed – Whether click subscription plan genuine or illegal Ponzi scheme – Whether corporate veil should be lifted to impose liability on second defendant as company's chief executive officer – Whether defendants liable for any sums paid – Whether suit 100 an abuse of process and maliciously commenced against plaintiff – Whether there was conspiracy to injure plaintiff – Whether any of the defendants liable to bear plaintiff's losses – Companies Act 2016, s 540 – Contracts Act 1950, ss 10, 24, 66 – Direct Sales and Anti- Pyramid Schemes Act 1993, s 27B(1) – Evidence Act 1950, s 101 – Financial Services Act 2013, ss 8, 137