Osram Opto Semiconductors (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Ooi Mei Chein @ Wei Mei Chein & Anor [2024] 6 AMR 461, CA

Labour law – Employment – Retrenchment – Employee retrenched on ground of redundancy held to be fairly done by Industrial Court – High Court quashed Industrial Court's award and granted reinstatement, back wages and punitive damages – Whether retrenchment done bona fide – Whether reinstatement after six years of termination conducive to industrial harmony – Whether employee entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Whether punitive damages justified – Whether company's appeal ought to be allowed – Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony 1975, paragraph 21 – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss 20(1), 30(5A)

HOM v HOP [2024] 6 AMR 495, HC

Family law – Children – Custody – Application for – Maternal grandmother sought joint guardianship and custody of her deceased daughter's ("deceased") child alongside child's father – Grounds of absent father and substituted parental role raised – Ongoing litigation between father and grandmother's family regarding deceased estate – Whether application ought to be allowed – Whether deceased appointed a joint guardian for the child – Whether father an unfit parent – Whether in light of ongoing litigation and acrimony between grandmother and father, custody/access of child should be granted to grandmother

Malaysia Airlines Sdn Bhd & Anor v AirAsia Com Travel Sdn Bhd [2024] 6 AMR 506, HC

Intellectual property – Trademarks – Infringement – Claim for damages – Defendant's e-commerce platform displayed signs/marks ("offending marks") identical to plaintiffs' registered marks – Whether actual usage of offending marks as trademark is prerequisite to infringement of trademark under Trademarks Act 2019 ("the Act") – Whether defendant infringed plaintiffs' registered trademarks – Whether defences under s 54 and/or s 55 of the Act available to defendant – Whether plaintiffs' trademarks well-known – Whether plaintiffs entitled to protection under s 76 of the Act – Whether defendant guilty of passing off and/or unlawful interference with trade – Whether plaintiffs entitled to aggravated or exemplary damages – Trade Marks Act 1976, s 38 – Trademarks Act 2019, ss 48, 54, 54(1), (2), (3), 55, 55(1)(b)(i), (c), 76

Panjalai a/p Vengadsamy & Anor (menyaman sebagai pentadbir estet Gobala Guru a/l Kandaiah) v Mohd Khairul Hafiz bin Yaacob & 4 Ors [2024] 6 AMR 559, HC

Damages (General) – Wrongful arrest – Action for – Allegation that police officers unlawfully arrested deceased, kidnapped and then killed deceased ("the act") – Inspector General of Police and Malaysian Government ("fourth and fifth defendants") sued for vicarious liability – Whether suit against fourth and fifth defendants barred by limitation under s 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 – Whether police officers liable for the act, misfeasance in public office and/or breach of statutory duties – Whether fourth and fifth defendants vicariously liable for torts committed by police officers – Whether deceased's estate entitled to general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against fourth and fifth defendants – Penal Code, s 365 – Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s 2(a)

Tort – Misfeasance in public office – Damages – Allegation that police officers unlawfully arrested deceased, kidnapped and then killed deceased ("the act") – Inspector General of Police and Malaysian Government ("fourth and fifth defendants") sued for vicarious liability – Whether suit against fourth and fifth defendants barred by limitation under s 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 – Whether police officers liable for the act, misfeasance in public office and/or breach of statutory duties – Whether fourth and fifth defendants vicariously liable for torts committed by police officers – Whether deceased's estate entitled to general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against fourth and fifth defendants – Penal Code, s 365 – Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s 2(a)

Tort – Negligence – Duty of care – Damages – Allegation that police officers unlawfully arrested deceased, kidnapped and then killed deceased ("the act") – Inspector General of Police and Malaysian Government ("fourth and fifth defendants") sued for vicarious liability – Whether suit against fourth and fifth defendants barred by limitation under s 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 – Whether police officers liable for the act, misfeasance in public office and/or breach of statutory duties – Whether fourth and fifth defendants vicariously liable for torts committed by police officers – Whether deceased's estate entitled to general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against fourth and fifth defendants – Penal Code, s 365 – Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s 2(a)

Tort – Vicarious liability – Claim for damages – Allegation that police officers unlawfully arrested deceased, kidnapped and then killed deceased ("the act") – Inspector General of Police and Malaysian Government ("fourth and fifth defendants") sued for vicarious liability – Whether suit against fourth and fifth defendants barred by limitation under s 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 – Whether police officers liable for the act, misfeasance in public office and/or breach of statutory duties – Whether fourth and fifth defendants vicariously liable for torts committed by police officers – Whether deceased's estate entitled to general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against fourth and fifth defendants – Penal Code, s 365 – Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s 2(a)