Skip to main content

(2024) All Malaysia Reports (AMR) - Week 34 (Part 2)

/
Content updates

Recently added cases from AMR to Westlaw Asia

B Braun Medical Industries Sdn Bhd v Mugunthan a/l Vadiveloo [2024] 6 AMR 125, CA

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Allegation by employee of forced acceptance of mutual separation scheme ("MSS") – Conflicting testimonies on whether employee informed of redundancy and given choice between MSS or retrenchment – High Court ("HC") upheld Industrial Court's ("IC") award and finding of unjust dismissal – Whether there was forced resignation under the MSS contract – Whether amounts to unlawful dismissal by employer – Whether legal burden on employee to prove forced resignation – Whether IC and HC considered relevant facts in reaching decision – Whether IC and HC wrong in determining employer's restructuring not bona fide – Whether award of IC unreasonable – Whether HC wrong in dismissing judicial review application – Evidence Act 1950, ss 8(2), 17(1), 18(1), 21, 91, 92, 101, 101(1), (2), 114(g) – Federal Constitution, Article 5(1) – Industrial Court Rules 1967, rule 16 – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss 20(1), 29(b), (c), 30(5)

Labour law – Employment – Dismissal – Allegation by employee of forced acceptance of mutual separation scheme ("MSS") – Conflicting testimonies on whether employee informed of redundancy and given choice between MSS or retrenchment – High Court ("HC") upheld Industrial Court's ("IC") award and finding of unjust dismissal – Whether there was forced resignation under the MSS contract – Whether amounts to unlawful dismissal by employer – Whether legal burden on employee to prove forced resignation – Whether IC and HC considered relevant facts in reaching decision – Whether IC and HC wrong in determining employer's restructuring not bona fide – Whether award of IC unreasonable – Whether HC wrong in dismissing judicial review application – Evidence Act 1950, ss 8(2), 17(1), 18(1), 21, 91, 92, 101, 101(1), (2), 114(g) – Federal Constitution, Article 5(1) – Industrial Court Rules 1967, rule 16 – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss 20(1), 29(b), (c), 30(5)

Export-Import Bank of Malaysia Berhad v Sun Holding (Sun Park Hotel) Co Ltd & 2 Ors [2024] 6 AMR 164, CA

Tort – Negligence – Breach of duty – Banker and customer – Appeal – Loan given to undertake property development in Lao People's Democratic Republic ("Lao PDR") – Land secured for loan sold upon default in repayment – Respondents sued for recovery of loan arrears – Counterclaim for breach of duty of care in land disposal allowed by High Court by applying Malaysian law – Whether Lao PDR's law applicable instead – Whether double actionability rule satisfied – Whether appellant had duty of care to ensure best possible price was obtained in disposing land – Whether duty of care breached – Whether such duty of care negatived by contractual provisions executed between parties – Whether appeal against High Court's decision ought to be allowed – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18

Amy Tee San San & 29 Ors v Magic Coast Sdn Bhd & 4 Ors [2024] 6 AMR 186, HC

Contract – Breach – Damages – Purchasers of hotel units executed management agreements ("MAs") with company ("D5") to participate in guaranteed rental return ("GRR") scheme – Units ceased let out as hotel suites – Purchasers sued D5 as well as project's developers and landowner ("D1 to D4") to claim for GRR and damages – Whether claims for GRR and damages tenable against D1 to D4 despite them being strangers to the MAs – Whether purchasers could rely on project's promotional materials to claim against D1 to D4 – Whether capital losses amount to special damages – Whether special damages could be granted without specific pleadings and strict proof thereof – Whether purchasers entitled to damages claimed – Whether D5 liable for purchasers' claim – Evidence Act 1950, s 40

Ayob bin Abd Hamid & 172 Ors v Asia Plantation Capital Pte Ltd & 19 Ors [2024] 6 AMR 213, HC

Civil procedure – Courts – Jurisdiction – Forum convenience – Validity of agreements between plaintiffs and first defendant containing arbitration clause challenged on ground of fraudulent misrepresentation and illegality – Other defendants applied to challenge jurisdiction of court and service of writ – Majority of contesting parties resident in Malaysia – Whether other defendants could assert any rights under agreements – Whether suit ought to be stayed pending arbitration pursuant to s 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Whether instant court has jurisdiction and is the forum conveniens to hear matter – Arbitration Act 2005, s 10 – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 23(1)(b) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 10 r 1(1), (3), Order 92 r 4

Civil procedure – Service – Writ and statement of claim ("summons") – Validity of agreements between plaintiffs and first defendant containing arbitration clause challenged on ground of fraudulent misrepresentation and illegality – Other defendants applied to challenge jurisdiction of court and service of summons – Majority of contesting parties resident in Malaysia – Whether other defendants could assert any rights under agreements – Whether service of summons by courier irregular in view of Order 10 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Arbitration Act 2005, s 10 – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 23(1)(b) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 10 r 1(1), (3), Order 92 r 4

Civil procedure – Stay – Application for – Validity of agreements between plaintiffs and first defendant containing arbitration clause challenged on ground of fraudulent misrepresentation and illegality – Other defendants applied to challenge jurisdiction of court and service of writ – Majority of contesting parties resident in Malaysia – Whether other defendants could assert any rights under agreements – Whether suit ought to be stayed pending arbitration pursuant to s 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Whether instant court has jurisdiction and is the forum conveniens to hear matter – Whether service of summons by courier irregular in view of Order 10 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Arbitration Act 2005, s 10 – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 23(1)(b) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 10 r 1(1), (3), Order 92 r 4

Mohammad Manik Ali v Public Prosecutor [2024] 6 AMR 235, HC

Criminal procedure – Revisions – Application for – Applicant convicted and sentenced for offence under s 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 following guilty plea – Revision applied on ground of miscarriage of justice – Applicant's application in government's program Rekalibrasi Tenaga Kerja 2.0 ("RTK application") allegedly approved – Whether status of "selesai" in applicant's RTK application means applicant has valid pass to remain in Malaysia – Whether conviction and sentence correct in law – Whether stay application for sentence meted out ought to be allowed pending appeal against decision in revision application – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 35(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, s 323(1) – Immigration Act 1959/63, ss 2, 6, 6(1)(c)

 

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.