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)