Skip to main content

(2024) All Malaysia Reports (AMR) - Week 22

/
Content updates

Recently added cases from AMR to Westlaw Asia

Julian Chong Sook Keok & Anor v Lee Kim Noor & Anor [2024] 4 AMR 237, FC

Tort – Negligence – Client-solicitor relationship – Limitation – Court of Appeal dismissed suit solely for being time-barred – High Court's finding on solicitor's negligence undisturbed – Sale and purchase agreement drafted by solicitor in 2004 without conducting land search which was later discovered to be charged to bank – Bank's notice to foreclose and demand redemption sum received in 2014 – Whether suit for negligence time-barred – Whether limitation commenced from date of agreement or date of bank's notice – When does time run in a claim or cause of action founded in tort of negligence and negligent misstatement – Does time run from first or last act complained of – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Whether Court of Appeal's decision in AmBank(M) Bhd v Abdul Aziz Hassan & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 784 still good law – Limitation Act 1953, s 6A

BJ Homes Development Sdn Bhd v Daveender Singh a/l Sarjeet Singh [2024] 4 AMR 265, HC

Contract – Settlement agreement – Validity of – Settlement agreement on payment for liquidated damages allegedly entered under duress and compulsion – Whether settlement agreement valid and enforceable – Whether there was duress – Whether suit not maintainable for lack of locus standi under s 22(c) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 – Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966, s 22(c)

Gopela Krishnan a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor [2024] 4 AMR 284, HC

Criminal procedure – Revision – Inquiries of death – Finding of open verdict – Deceased shot to death by police – Shots fired claimed to be in self-defence after car chase – Whether finding justified and correct – Whether ought to be set aside – Whether there was lack of judicial appreciation of evidence – Whether coroner exceeded jurisdiction under s 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code in expressing concern over inquest proceedings – Whether police's version of events lacked credibility – Whether coroner's undue inclination towards police version improper – Whether coroner ought to have arrived at definitive verdict of "homicide" instead of open verdict – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 35(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 325(1), 337

Inquiries of death – Coroner's verdict – Appeal against – Open verdict – Deceased shot to death by police – Shots fired claimed to be in self-defence after car chase – Whether finding justified and correct – Whether ought to be set aside – Whether there was lack of judicial appreciation of evidence – Whether coroner exceeded jurisdiction under s 337 of Criminal Procedure Code in expressing concern over inquest proceedings – Whether police's version of events lacked credibility – Whether coroner's undue inclination towards police version improper – Whether coroner ought to have arrived at definitive verdict of "homicide" instead of open verdict – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 35(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 325(1), 337

Khoo Mum Huah v Wilfred Lee Vui Ming [2024] 4 AMR 301, HC

Land law – Ownership – Possession of land – Appeal by registered owner against order of Director of the Lands and Surveys Department affirming subdivision of disputed land by Assistant Collector of Land Revenue in favour of occupier – Whether occupier established joint ownership over land – Whether occupier entitled to seek subdivision of land – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Land Ordinance, s 41

MIL v MON (and Another Originating Summons) [2024] 4 AMR 307, HC

Family law – Children – Custody – Father granted custody over child born out of wedlock – Upon the father's death, the child's mother and half-sister sought guardianship, custody, care, and control of child – Child continued to reside under half-sister and her siblings' care – Whether material change in circumstances established to justify variation of court order – Whether s 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 automatically shifts custody of child to surviving parent – Whether custody of child ought to be granted to her half-sister or mother – Whether variation application procedurally flawed for not substituting father's administratrix as party – Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, s 6 – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 83, 84, 96, 97

Nordin bin Mahamud v MW Assembler Sdn Bhd (previously known as Crusk Assembler Sdn Bhd) & Anor [2024] 4 AMR 324, HC

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Interim injunction – Application for – Dispute regarding promise of shares and appointment of plaintiff as director and chairman pursuant to acquisition of company – Allegation of breach of contract seeking monetary and not declaratory reliefs regarding ownership of shares – Plaintiff applied to injunct/restrain management affairs of company – Whether there were serious questions to be tried – Whether balance of convenience lay in favour of plaintiff – Whether reliefs claimed could stand in absence of claim for ownership or transfer of requisite shares – Whether application relevant to preserve status quo of parties – Whether payment of damages adequate remedy for plaintiff – Whether application ought to be allowed – Rules of Court 2012, Order 29 r 1, Order 92 r 4

Wong Fook Thian & 2 Ors v Raub Energy Venture (RE) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] 4 AMR 334, HC

Tort – Negligence – Breach of duty – Claim for damages – Plaintiffs complained of trespass and nuisance on their lands for construction works carried out by defendants on adjoining lands – Whether plaintiffs proved ownership over allegedly trespassed lands – Whether plaintiffs' claims of trespass, nuisance and/or negligence proved – Whether plaintiffs entitled to damages – Evidence Act 1950, s 73A(3)

Tort – Trespass – Encroachment – Claim for damages – Plaintiffs complained of trespass and nuisance on their lands for construction works carried out by defendants on adjoining lands – Whether plaintiffs proved ownership over allegedly trespassed lands – Whether plaintiffs' claims of trespass, nuisance and/or negligence proved – Whether plaintiffs entitled to damages – Evidence Act 1950, s 73A(3)

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.