Nordin bin Kassim v Murallitharan a/l Munisamy (Majlis Peguam – Intervener) [2025] 3 AMR 1, CA

Civil procedure – Time – Enlargement or extension of – Application for extension of time ("EOT") to file appeal – Delay of 154 days from court's decision – Prayer for EOT not included in application for leave to appeal – Whether extension of time ought to be granted – Whether relevant evidence adduced to explain delay – Whether appeal had merits – Legal Profession Act 1976, s 94(3)

Tang Heng Lut v Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri Pulau Pinang & 2 Ors [2025] 3 AMR 15, CA

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Appellant, representing owners of condominium situated adjacent to subject land sought certiorari to quash rezoning decision and variation of express condition of subject land by respondents – Whether appellant had right under s 124 of the National Land Code to challenge variation – Whether appellant had locus standi to file application – Whether Town and Country Planning Act 1976 contained any provision expressly allowing or prohibiting appellant from participating in rezoning process of subject land – Whether High Court erred in dismissing appellant's application – National Land Code, s 124, 124(1) – Town and Country Planning Act 1976, ss 4, 18(1), (3), 21(6), (7)

Land law – Planning permission – Application for rezoning – Appellant, representing owners of condominium situated adjacent to subject land sought certiorari to quash rezoning decision and variation of express condition of subject land by respondents – Whether appellant had right under s 124 of the National Land Code to challenge variation – Whether appellant had locus standi to file application – Whether Town and Country Planning Act 1976 contained any provision expressly allowing or prohibiting appellant from participating in rezoning process of subject land – Whether High Court erred in dismissing appellant's application – National Land Code, s 124, 124(1) – Town and Country Planning Act 1976, ss 4, 18(1), (3), 21(6), (7)

Teoh Ying Rin v Savatery a/p Jayaraman [2025] 3 AMR 40, CA

Probate and administration – Wills – Validity of – Testator bequeathed substantial assets to sole executrix and trustee of his estate – No familial relationship – Challenge by testator's wife on ground of suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of will – Whether suspicious circumstances sufficiently dispelled and removed – Whether testator's knowledge and approval of terms of the will proved – Whether will valid – Whether High Court order declaring will null and void ought to be set aside – Wills Act 1959, s 5(2)

Aminah bt Ahmad (menyaman atas kapasiti peribadinya dan bagi pihak 56 pesara perkhidmatan awam) v Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2025] 3 AMR 59, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Application for mandamus orders – Refusal by Director General of Public Services ("DG") to adjust pension based on revived ss 3 and 6 of the Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 – Applicant retired prior to 2013 – Whether DG's refusal lawful, constitutional and rational – Whether there was salary revision after 2012 – Court of Appeal in previous proceeding refused to make any order for retrospective adjustments to be made – Whether doctrine of res judicata applicable – Whether application ought to be allowed – Federal Constitution, Article 147 – Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss 3, 6 – Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013, ss 3, 7

Public servants – Pensions – Adjustments – Application for mandamus orders – Refusal by Director General of Public Services ("DG") to adjust pension based on revived ss 3 and 6 of the Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 – Applicant retired prior to 2013 – Whether DG's refusal lawful, constitutional and rational – Whether there was salary revision after 2012 – Court of Appeal in previous proceeding refused to make any order for retrospective adjustments to be made – Whether doctrine of res judicata applicable – Whether application ought to be allowed – Federal Constitution, Article 147 – Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss 3, 6 – Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013, ss 3, 7

Pakiam a/p Kulan v Saradha a/p Kannan [2025] 3 AMR 79, HC

Land law – Ownership – Possession of land – Plaintiff sued defendant for trespass and sought vacant possession of land – Defendant claimed to be bona fide purchaser – Defendant's agreements only produced at evidence stage – Whether plaintiff's ownership of land proved – Whether defendant's agreements void due to fraud – Whether plaintiff entitled to damages

Tort – Trespass – Encroachment – Damages – Plaintiff sued defendant for trespass and sought vacant possession of land – Defendant claimed to be bona fide purchaser – Defendant's agreements only produced at evidence stage – Whether plaintiff's ownership of land proved – Whether defendant's agreements void due to fraud – Whether plaintiff entitled to damages

Shell MDS (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS) & Anor [2025] 3 AMR 93, HC

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Interim injunction – Competing claims from defendants on plaintiff's payment for natural gas supply – First defendant had exclusive rights over petroleum operations nationwide under Petroleum Development Act 1974 – Second defendant designated as sole authorised aggregator for Sarawak under Distribution of Gas Ordinance 2016 – Plaintiff sought to preserve status quo by restraining defendants from disrupting gas supply or enforcing payment demands until determination of rightful payment recipient – Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify injunction – Whether balance of convenience favoured plaintiff – Whether application filed in bad faith – Whether monetary damages adequate remedy – Whether injunction ought to be granted – Contracts Act 1950, s 66 – Distribution of Gas Ordinance 2016 – Petroleum Development Act 1974

Tonny Ramlee & Anor v Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) [2025] 3 AMR 111, HC

Criminal law – Corruption – Accepting gratification – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Enforcement officer solicited and accepted bribe from shop owner – Alleged inconsistencies in timing of offence stated in charge – Whether fatal to prosecution case – Whether conviction and sentence safe – Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, ss 16(a)(B), 17(a) – Penal Code, s 34