Dato’ Azizan bin Abd Rahman & 2 Ors v Concrete Parade Sdn Bhd & 5 Ors (and 3 Other Appeals) 2024] 3 AMR 709, FC

Company law – Member's rights – Oppression – Appeal – Directors propose to allot and issue new shares to partly fund business merger ("proposed merger") involving company's subsidiary with third company – Majority shareholders not joined as parties when oppression action under s 346 of the Companies Act 2016 ("the Act") commenced by minority shareholder – Whether minority shareholder's pre-emptive rights under s 85(1) of the Act adversely affected by proposed merger – Whether company's constitution prevailed over rights under s 85(1) of the Act – Whether pre-emptive rights for shareholders mandatory in nature – Whether proposed merger violated s 223 of the Act – Proper construction to be accorded to ss 85 and 223 of the Act – Whether proposed merger unfairly prejudiced minority shareholder in diminishing its investment in company despite majority shareholders' approval – Whether share buy-back transactions ultra vires company's constitution rendering it illegal per se – Whether non-joinder of majority shareholders fatal to oppression action – Whether minority shareholder entitled to remedies under s 346 of the Act – Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, s 139 – Companies Act 1965, s 67A, 67A(1), (2), (7) – Companies Act 2016, ss 127, 223, 223(1), (1)(b)(i), (ii), 346, 582

Suriati binti Mohd Yusof v CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd [2024] 3 AMR 802, HC

Tort – Negligence – Breach of duty – Report from credit reporting agency caused loan application to be rejected – Negative credit rating and low credit score allegedly based on inaccurate and false information – Whether credit reporting agency has duty to ensure accuracy of credit report – Whether information received needs to be verified for purpose of using or processing credit information – Whether credit reporting agency breached its duty of care and overstepped its scope of services by formulating credit score – Whether plaintiff entitled to damages – Credit Reporting Agencies Act 2010, s 29

Unicious Energy Pte Ltd v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Alpine Mathilde” (No. IMO: 9380506) Registered at themPort of Hong Kong (No. 2) [2024] 3 AMR 809, HC

Shipping and maritime – Action in rem – Arrest of vessel – Cargo seller subject to United States ("US") sanctions while cargo was "blocked property" – Cargo seller commenced action in rem and arrested vessel purportedly as security for arbitration – Action dismissed previously in favour of vessel's owner – Prayer for damages for wrongful arrest of vessel pending – Whether vessel's owner entitled to damages – Whether arrest brought maliciously or negligently – Whether arrest permeated by non-disclosure of material facts – Attempt to relitigate issue of arrest/release of vessel and cargo on board previously adjudicated by two different courts – Whether amounts to abuse of court process – Arbitration Act 2005, s 11(1)(c)