Skip to main content

(2024) All Malaysia Reports (AMR) - Week 37 (Part 1)

/
Content updates

Recently added cases from AMR to Westlaw Asia

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)

 

 

By Thomson Reuters Malaysia Editorial Team
Malaysia Editorial Team

Speak to a consultant

Can't find an answer to your question?
Contact our support team.

Request training

Contact our team to arrange training.

Tell us what you think

We'd love to hear what you think
of our products and support.