Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers & 2 Ors v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd [2023] 8 AMR 225, FC

Contract – Moneylending agreement – Breach – Moneylender agreed to grant loan subject to loan amount being repaid in excess of principal sum or payable as "agreed profits" – High Court held loan not illegal moneylending – Borrower ordered to pay moneylender loan amount plus "agreed profit" – Court of Appeal upheld said decision – Whether loan moneylending transaction – Whether valid – Whether loan in breach of the Moneylenders Act 1951 ("the MA51") – Whether "interest" at 100% rate disguised as "agreed profit" valid – Whether moneylender engaged in moneylending under s 2 of the MA51 – Whether statutory presumption under s 10OA of the MA51 rebutted – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Contracts Act 1950, s 24 – Moneylenders Act 1951, ss 2, 5(2), 10OA

Moneylenders – Loan transaction – Default in repayment – Moneylender agreed to grant loan subject to loan amount being repaid in excess of principal sum or payable as "agreed profits" – High Court held loan not illegal moneylending – Borrower ordered to pay moneylender loan amount plus "agreed profit" – Court of Appeal upheld said decision – Whether loan moneylending transaction – Whether valid – Whether loan in breach of the Moneylenders Act 1951 ("the MA51") – Whether "interest" at 100% rate disguised as "agreed profit" valid – Whether moneylender engaged in moneylending under s 2 of the MA51 – Whether statutory presumption under s 10OA of the MA51 rebutted – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Contracts Act 1950, s 24 – Moneylenders Act 1951, ss 2, 5(2), 10OA

Port Kelang Authority v Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd [2023] 8 AMR 244, CA

Contract – Development agreement – Validity of – Parties executed various agreements for development of project – Allegation that one of supplemental agreements where parties agreed on increased interest chargeable on development works null and void as it was entered without consideration – High Court judge ("HCJ") held consideration for said agreement was completion of works under another agreement – Whether fact pleaded – Whether HCJ erred in relying on such facts/issues – Whether agreement null and void under s 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 for want of consideration – Whether plaintiff estopped from challenging validity of agreement post voluntarily executing it – Contracts Act 1950, s 26

Suhaimi bin Alias v Pendakwa Raya [2023] 8 AMR 267, CA

Criminal law – Kidnapping – Abduction or wrongful confinement for ransom – Conviction of three accused including appellant under s 3 of the Kidnapping Act 1961 – Sentence of life imprisonment and 10 strokes of whipping – Whether there was evidence to prove appellant's involvement in kidnapping and confinement for ransom – Whether appellant identified as one of the captors – Whether there was evidence to infer appellant made demand for ransom – Whether demand for ransom made by one captor sufficient to invoke principle of common intention – Whether charge ought to be reduced under s 365 of the Penal Code – Whether sentence excessive – Kidnapping Act 1961, s 3 – Penal Code, ss 34, 365

Abdul Aziz bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor [2023] 8 AMR 281, HC

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Rape – Attempted rape – Accused alleged to have rubbed the back, kissed and sucked neck of complainant – Accused said to be only partially erect and had been kicked by complainant in self-defence – Whether attempted rape proved – Whether accused had endured an unfair trial as he did not know the charge he was tried for – Whether miscarriage of justice occasioned – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 156, 158, 422(a) – Penal Code, ss 354, 376(3), 511

Criminal procedure – Charge – Framing or particulars of – Particulars showing offence other than that charged – Whether charge invalid even though relevant sections of Penal Code mentioned – Judge not noticing infirmity of charge – Whether miscarriage of justice occasioned – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 156, 158, 422(a) – Penal Code, ss 354, 376(3), 511

Criminal procedure – Trial – Judge – Duty of – Whether judge sufficiently considered evidence and defence of accused – Judge not noticing defective charge – Whether miscarriage of justice occasioned – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 156, 158, 422(a) – Penal Code, ss 354, 376(3), 511

Alexander a/l Ganapragasam v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & 2 Ors [2023] 8 AMR 300, HC

Criminal procedure – Habeas corpus – Application for – Detention order issued under s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act") – Whether applicant's involvement with "substantial body of persons" under the Act established – Whether there was delay in issuance of detention order – Whether alleged delay by investigating officer ("IO") and inquiry officer prejudiced applicant and caused delay in issuance of detention order – Whether alleged failure of IO to supply applicant's cautioned statement to his counsel amounted to non-compliance with the Act and/or Federal Constitution – Whether rendered detention order null and void – Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, ss 3(3), 4, 5(2), 6(1), 9(2) – Federal Constitution, Article 151(1)(a)

Mohamad Zulfikar bin Mohd Azman v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & 2 Ors [2023] 8 AMR 311, HC

Criminal procedure – Habeas corpus – Application for – Detention order issued by deputy minister under s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act") – Whether defective due to non-compliance with the Act – Delay of 19 days by investigation officer to submit complete report to deputy minister and inquiry officer – Whether delay prejudicial – Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, ss 3(3), 5(3)(c), 6(1) – Evidence Act 1950, s 114(e) – Federal Constitution

Reflex Media, Inc & Anor v Endeavour Standard Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 8 AMR 322, HC

Civil procedure – Costs – Security for costs – Application for – Sum awarded in default judgment obtained from foreign country sought against defendants – Plaintiffs are foreign companies, without any assets in Malaysia – Whether security for costs ought to be granted – Whether defendants likely to recover order of costs, if any, from plaintiffs – Rules of Court 2012, Order 23 r 1(1)