Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong [2024] 5 AMR 341, FC

Tort – Defamation – Libel – Appeal against – Court of Appeal allowed defamation claim – Impugned statement regarding respondent's past arrest and criminal charges circulated on WhatsApp group with deliberate non-disclosure of his acquittal – Whether common law principle of half-truth statement applicable in Malaysia – Whether impugned statement qualified as half-truth statement – Whether half-truth statement amounts to false statement – Whether impugned statement defamatory – Whether there was malice by author – Whether defences of qualified privilege, fair comment and/or justification applicable – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Civil Law Act 1956, s 3(1) – Defamation Act 1957, ss 8, 9

Shankarkumar a/l Sanpathkumar v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan [2024] 5 AMR 370, CA

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Appeal – High Court upheld Director General of Industrial Relations' ("DGIR") refusal to refer workman's representation to Industrial Court – Workman rejected reinstatement offered by employer during conciliation proceedings – Whether DGIR has discretion whether or not to refer representation to Industrial Court in view of amended s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Whether DGIR empowered to assess merits of settlement meetings between parties – Whether DGIR mandatorily obliged to refer workman's representations to Industrial Court in absence of settlement – Whether workman estopped by his stand in conciliation meetings before DGIR – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s 20(1), (2), (3) – Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53

Labour law – Employment – Dismissal – Appeal – High Court upheld Director General of Industrial Relations' ("DGIR") refusal to refer workman's representation to Industrial Court – Workman rejected reinstatement offered by employer during conciliation proceedings – Whether DGIR has discretion to refer representation to Industrial Court in view of amended s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Whether DGIR empowered to assess merits of settlement meetings between parties – Whether DGIR mandatorily obliged to refer workman's representations to Industrial Court in absence of settlement – Whether workman estopped by his stand in conciliation meetings before DGIR – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s 20(1), (2), (3) – Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53

Ahmad Khushairi bin Mohamed Nasser v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [2024] 5 AMR 397, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Employee dismissed pursuant to domestic inquiry, referred to Industrial Court – Chairman who conducted trial left – New chairman handed down award and held employee's dismissal was with just cause and excuse – Whether new chairman had jurisdiction to decide matter under s 23(6) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Whether matter ought to be heard de novo by new chairman – Whether award bad in law – Whether there was breach of natural justice – Whether employee's misconduct proved on facts – Whether employer's investigations and domestic inquiry flawed – Whether punishment proportionate – Whether award ought to be quashed – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss 20(3), 23(6)

Lim Poh Chuen & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak [2024] 5 AMR 417, HC

Land law – Sub-division of titles – Conversion – Freehold to leasehold – Landowners challenged change of land tenure from in perpetuity to 99-year lease vide originating summons – Whether mode of commencing appropriate – Whether landowners should have filed judicial review to challenge state authority's conversion – Whether conversion ultra vires – Whether landowners' fundamental right to enjoy their land violated – Land Enactment 1903 – National Land Code, ss 76, 240E(3A)

Public Prosecutor v Tai Chee Khiong [2024] 5 AMR 431, HC

Dangerous drugs – Trafficking – Methamphetamine – Accused arrested after car chase – Methamphetamine found from accused vehicle in his presence – No fingerprints or DNA of accused found on drugs – Whether prima facie case established by prosecution – Whether defence of innocent carrier established – Conviction of accused under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether punishment of death penalty ought to be imposed – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s 39B(1)(a) – Evidence Act 1950, s 45