Skip to main content

All Malaysia Reports (AMR) - Week 12 (Part 2)

/
Content updates

Recently added cases from AMR to Westlaw Asia

Ranjan Paramalingam & Anor v Persatuan Penduduk Taman Bangsar Kuala Lumpur (disaman melalui presidennya Nitesh Malani) [2023] 2 AMR 645, CA

Tort – Nuisance – Damages – Appeal – Security measures undertaken alleged to cause private and public nuisance and in breach of personal data laws – High Court dismissed objections to security scheme – Whether pleadings established torts – Whether tort of nuisance and/or breach of personal data laws proved – Whether security scheme valid – Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956 – Local Government Act 1976 – Personal Data Protection Act 2010, ss 4(a)-(d), 130(7) – Societies Act 1966

Aneka Retail (M) Sdn Bhd v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & 2 Ors [2023] 2 AMR 674, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Leave sought for order of certiorari to quash Industrial Court's awards – Industrial Court upheld constructive dismissal objected against due to availability of appeal remedy under s 33C of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 as amended vide Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 – Whether judicial review application maintainable – Whether appeal, the appropriate remedy – Whether stay of execution of awards ought to be granted – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss 20, 20(3), 33C – Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020, s 35 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53

Labour law – Employment – Constructive dismissal – Leave sought for an order of certiorari to quash Industrial Court's awards – Industrial Court upheld constructive dismissal objected due to availability of appeal remedy under s 33C of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 as amended vide Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 – Whether judicial review application maintainable – Whether appeal, the appropriate remedy – Whether stay of execution of awards ought to be granted – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss 20, 20(3), 33C – Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020, s 35 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53

Kuala Kencana Development Sdn Bhd & 6 Ors v Bala Subramaniam Rasu (as liquidator of Valientview Construction Sdn Bhd) [2023] 2 AMR 683, HC

Professions – Advocates and solicitors – Acceptance of brief – Conflict of interest – Application to disqualify and/or recuse firm from acting for breach of rules 3, 4 and 5(a) of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 – Whether solicitors ought to be disqualified and/or recused from case – Evidence Act 1950, s 126 – Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, rules 3, 4, 5(a)

Premalla a/p Navanthapany Samy v Tetuan Othman Hashim & Co (Sebuah Firma) & Anor [2023] 2 AMR 697, HC

Tort – Negligence – Breach of duty – Solicitor-client relationship – Negligence claimed against solicitors' advice – Whether advice not to appeal against High Court's decision allegedly arising out of fraudulent intentions – Whether solicitors breached duty of care and fiduciary duty – Whether admission of liability by solicitors – Whether claim against solicitors sustainable – Contracts Act 1950, ss 24, 25 – Moneylenders Act 1951, ss 2-5, 15 – National Land Code 1965, s 267

Public Prosecutor v Maxland Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 2 AMR 731, HC

Criminal procedure – Acquittal and discharge – Appeal – Respondents jointly charged under ss 20(2) and 23(2) of the Forest Enactment 1968 for illegal logging activities – Whether reasonable doubt raised on prosecution case – Whether respondents physically working on site where logs were felled – Whether third party company responsible for illegal felling – Whether respondents principal of third party company and liable for its illegal acts – Forest Enactment 1968, ss 20(2), 23(2), 34(e), 38(8)

Forestry – Illegal taking of forest produce – Appeal – Respondents jointly charged under ss 20(2) and 23(2) of the Forest Enactment 1968 for illegal logging activities, acquitted and discharged – Whether reasonable doubt raised on prosecution case – Whether respondents physically working on site where logs were felled – Whether third party company responsible for illegal felling – Whether respondents principal of third party company and liable for its illegal acts – Forest Enactment 1968, ss 20(2), 23(2), 34(e), 38(8)

 

By Thomson Reuters Malaysia Editorial Team
Malaysia Editorial Team