Golden Star & 3 Ors v Ling Peek Hoe & Anor (and Another Appeal) [2024] 4 AMR 477, FC

Damages (General) – Assessment – Appeal – Special damages including legal costs awarded by High Court and affirmed by Court of Appeal – Legal costs comprised retainer and refresher fees incurred in course of whole action from High Court to Federal Court – Whether costs can be claimed as damages – Whether legal fee being specie of special damages claimable over and above costs – Whether "costs" as defined under Order 59 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the ROC") distinct from damages – Whether High Court vested with jurisdiction to award costs other than those incurred in High Court – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 25(2), Schedule, item 15 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 59, Order 59 r 1

Chong Fui Thung v Sena Diecasting Industries SB [2024] 4 AMR 498, CA

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Appeal against High Court ("HC") order quashing Industrial Court's ("IC") award and finding of constructive dismissal – HC made finding of fact vis-à-vis act of condonation by employee – Fact not pleaded and ventilated before IC –Whether principle of condonation applicable – Whether HC erred in law in quashing IC's award – Whether there were clear errors in finding of facts by IC – Whether appellate intervention warranted

Labour law – Employment – Constructive dismissal – Appeal against High Court ("HC") order quashing Industrial Court's ("IC") award and finding of constructive dismissal – HC made finding of fact vis-à-vis act of condonation by employee – Fact not pleaded and ventilated before IC – Whether principle of condonation applicable – Whether HC erred in law in quashing IC's award – Whether there were clear errors in finding of facts by IC – Whether appellate intervention warranted

Farina binti Farikullah Khan v Rakiah binti Mohd Shah (Shamsiah binti Fari Kulloh & 5 Ors – Interveners) [2024] 4 AMR 512, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Application for – Plaintiff (daughter) filed suit under s 52 of the Mental Health Act 2001 seeking appointment as her mother's sole guardian and charge of her estate and a committee comprising plaintiff and other persons court deems proper – Other siblings intervened and sought striking out of suit – Three interveners granted responsibility for providing sustenance and care to mother vide interim order passed in another pending suit before Syariah High Court – Whether civil court lacked jurisdiction to hear matters as mother is Muslim – Whether Article 74(2) of the Federal Constitution infringed – Whether Syariah courts vested with jurisdiction to adjudge matters relating to mental disorder – Whether suit was collateral attack against Syariah High Court order and attempt to re-litigate issues – Whether suit amounted to abuse of court's process and ought to be struck out – Federal Constitution, Ninth Schedule, List I, item 4, List II, item 1 – Mental Health Act 2001, s 52 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19(1)(b), (d)

John bin Until & 4 Ors (suing for and on behalf of themselves and the residents of Kampung Segaliud, Sandakan) v Prolific Yield Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] 4 AMR 534, HC

Tort – Negligence – Duty of care – Breach – Claim for damages – Allegation that palm oil mills unlawfully discharged industrial effluents into Sungai Segaliud and its tributaries– Plaintiffs filed representative action on behalf of 144 other residents – Whether plaintiffs had locus standi to commence action – Whether negligence and/or public nuisance proved – Whether plaintiffs could rely on first defendant's previous conviction to support their claims – Whether plaintiffs entitled to damages – Government Proceedings Act 1956, s 8(1) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 15 r 12(3)

Tort – Nuisance – Public nuisance – Claim for damages – Allegation that palm oil mills unlawfully discharged industrial effluents into Sungai Segaliud and its tributaries – Plaintiffs filed representative action on behalf of 144 other residents – Whether plaintiffs had locus standi to commence action – Whether negligence and/or public nuisance proved – Whether plaintiffs could rely on first defendant's previous conviction to support their claims – Whether plaintiffs entitled to damages – Government Proceedings Act 1956, s 8(1) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 15 r 12(3)

Padmanathan a/l Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [2024] 4 AMR 554, HC

Dangerous drugs – Possession – Self administration – Conviction for offence under ss 6 and 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for possession and self-administration of dangerous drugs respectively – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether possession of drugs established – Whether appellant was in custody and control of drugs – Whether appellant rebutted presumption of possession – Whether magistrate erred in invoking adverse inference against appellant for failing to call witnesses – Whether there was gap in chain of evidence for non-production of sample urine bottle in court – Whether reasonable doubt in prosecution case – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 6, 15(1)(a), 37(d) – Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g)