Premalla a/p Navanthapany Samy v Tetuan Othman Hashim & Co (sebuah firma) & Anor [2024] 6 AMR 1, CA

Professions – Advocates and solicitors – Negligence – Appeal against High Court's dismissal of client's claim against solicitor for advice given – Whether solicitor's advice in client's best interest – Whether solicitor breached duty of care and fiduciary duty to client – Whether there was admission of liability by solicitor – Whether client suffered loss of chance/opportunity to claim loss due to solicitor's advice – Whether appellate intervention warranted

Tort – Professional negligence – Advocates and solicitors – Appeal against High Court's dismissal of client's claim against solicitor for advice given – Whether solicitor's advice in client's best interest – Whether solicitor breached duty of care and fiduciary duty to client – Whether there was admission of liability by solicitor – Whether client suffered loss of chance/opportunity to claim loss due to solicitor's advice – Whether appellate intervention warranted

Public Prosecutor v Ngumbang anak Abang (and Another Appeal) [2024] 6 AMR 19, CA

Criminal law – Murder – Appeal against acquittal and discharge – Eyewitnesses' testimony of respondents involvement in crime – Error in date of commission of offence – Respondents pleaded self-defence – Whether respondents entitled to plea of self-defence – Whether acquittal and discharge justified –Whether charge preferred against respondents defective since no amendment made by prosecution to rectify date of incident – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 156, 422 – Penal Code, ss 97(a), 99(3), (4), 100(a), 102, 300(c)

Criminal procedure – Acquittal or discharge – Murder – Appeal against – Eyewitnesses' testimony of respondents involvement in crime – Error in date of commission of offence – Respondents pleaded self-defence – Whether respondents entitled to plea of self-defence – Whether acquittal and discharge justified – Whether charge preferred against respondents defective since no amendment made by prosecution to rectify date of incident – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 156, 422 – Penal Code, ss 97(a), 99(3), (4), 100(a), 102, 300(c)

BM PAP Mohad Rizal @ Muhammad Rizal v KDR Mohd Fadzil bin Tahir (Pegawai Memerintah Pasukan Markas Pemerintahan Pasukan Simpanan (MPPS) TLDM Sungai Lunchoo) & Anor [2024] 6 AMR 46, HC

Damages (General) – Wrongful arrest – Action for – Finding of guilt under s 87 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 and punishment of detention for 60 days quashed in judicial review proceedings – Damages claimed for wrongful detention of 40 days, loss of employment and benefits in service and humiliation and/or embarrassment – Whether claim for humiliation and/or embarrassment misconceived for being integral part of damages for wrongful imprisonment – Whether in absence of challenge to termination from service, claim for loss of employment and benefits in service sustainable – Whether applicant entitled to damages and to what extent – Armed Forces Act 1972, s 87

Bond Holdings Sdn Bhd v Sycal Berhad & Anor [2024] 6 AMR 56, HC

Contract – Breach – Collaboration agreement – Plaintiff agreed to raise advance funding for defendants to complete development project in return for a share of sale proceeds – Agreement terminated by defendants due to plaintiff's alleged failure to pay advance funding – Whether advance funding paid in full and as per deadlines stipulated in agreement – Whether agreement breached – Whether termination of agreement valid – Whether cause of action based on quantum meruit pleaded – Whether doctrine of unjust enrichment applicable – Whether plaintiff entitled to damages – Whether counterclaims should be allowed – Contracts Act 1950, s 71

Chantika Kelang Beras Sdn Bhd v Chin Teow Hin Sdn Bhd [2024] 6 AMR 90, HC

Company law – Winding up – Petition – Withdrawal of petition by petitioning creditor – Supporting creditors opposed withdrawal – One supporting creditor ("bank") applied for substitution as petitioning creditor – Whether bank had right to present petition on original date of petition presented by petitioning creditor – Whether debt due to bank crystalised on said date – Whether notice under s 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 mandatory – Whether application ought to be allowed – Companies Act 2016, ss 464(1)(b), 466, 466(1)(a) – Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, rule 33

Nelson Yen Yee Chung v Public Prosecutor [2024] 6 AMR 101, HC

Criminal law – Security offences – Bail – Applicant charged for security offence under Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ("SOSMA") applied for bail – Whether prosecution's affidavit opposing bail application admissible – Whether s 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be relied on to make out a case for bail in view of s 13(2) of SOSMA – Whether issue of unconstitutionality of s 13(1) of SOSMA sustainable – Criminal Procedure Code, s 388 – Penal Code, s 130V(1) – Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, s 13, 13(1), (2)

Criminal procedure – Bail – Application for – Applicant charged for security offence under Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ("SOSMA") – Whether prosecution's affidavit opposing bail application admissible – Whether s 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be relied on to make out a case for bail in view of s 13(2) of SOSMA – Whether issue of unconstitutionality of s 13(1) of SOSMA sustainable – Criminal Procedure Code, s 388 – Penal Code, s 130V(1) – Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, s 13, 13(1), (2)

Ramasamy a/l Ponnusamy v Public Prosecutor [2024] 6 AMR 107, HC

Criminal procedure – Revision – Application for – Applicant convicted and sentenced by magistrate after guilty plea accepted – Whether guilty plea was equivocal and/or qualified – Whether magistrate failed to comply with s 173(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code – Whether revision application ought to be allowed – Whether conviction and sentence ought to be set aside – Criminal Procedure Code, s 173(b) – Elections Offences Act 1954, s 4A

Wong Siew Lian v Pendakwa Raya [2024] 6 AMR 113, HC

Revenue law – Income tax – Business income – Persons chargeable – Director's liability – Company failed to submit income tax assessments – Director pleaded guilty – Magistrate's Court convicted director and imposed fine of RM18,000 – Director ordered to pay special penalty to Inland Revenue Board – Whether charge defective – Whether Magistrate's Court ensured appellant understood nature of guilty plea and informed of potential penalties – Whether in view of absence of reverse onus clause in s 75 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the ITA"), director cannot be made liable for offences committed by company – Whether alleged offences under the ITA that of company only – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 74(6), 75, 75(3), 75A, 77, 77A(1), 112(1A) – Criminal Procedure Code, s 173(b)