The Government of Malaysia & Anor v Ian Chin Hon Chong (for himself and on behalf of all the affected judges who were appointed to the High Court in Sabah & Sarawak before 1 July 2015 and receiving their pensions and on behalf of all persons who are receiving their derivative pensions on account of the death of such judges) [2024] 6 AMR 585, CA

Constitutional law – Legislation – Ultra vires – Pension adjustment – High Court declared Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 2014 ("Act A1462") void for being less favourable and inconsistent with Article 125(7) of the Federal Constitution – Whether Act A1462 void and disadvantageous to judges' pension rights – Whether Judges' Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2016 applicable to judges' pension – Whether it would be nullified if Act A1462 declared void – Whether judges' pension was a "right" or "ex gratia payment" – Whether High Court erred in calculating pension amount – Federal Constitution, Articles 125(7), (9), 147 – Judges' Remuneration Act 1971, ss 15B, 15B(1), (2), 19 – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 1984, s 15(1), Third and Fourth Schedules – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 2014, s 15B(1) – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2016 – Pensions Act 1980, s 3 – Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 – Pensions Ordinance 1951, s 5

Constitutional law – Public servants – Pension – Protection of – Pension adjustment for retired public servants – High Court declared Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 2014 ("Act A1462") void for being less favourable and inconsistent with Article 125(7) of the Federal Constitution – Whether Act A1462 void and disadvantageous to judges' pension rights – Whether Judges' Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2016 applicable to judges' pension – Whether it would be nullified if Act A1462 declared void – Whether judges' pension was a "right" or "ex gratia payment" – Whether High Court erred in calculating pension amount – Federal Constitution, Articles 125(7), (9), 147 – Judges' Remuneration Act 1971, ss 15B, 15B(1), (2), 19 – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 1984, s 15(1), Third and Fourth Schedules – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 2014, s 15B(1) – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2016 – Pensions Act 1980, s 3 – Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 – Pensions Ordinance 1951, s 5

Public servants – Pensions – Adjustments – Appeal – High Court declared Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 2014 ("Act A1462") void for being less favourable and inconsistent with Article 125(7) of the Federal Constitution – Whether Act A1462 void and disadvantageous to judges' pension rights – Whether Judges' Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2016 applicable to judges' pension – Whether it would be nullified if Act A1462 declared void – Whether judges' pension was a "right" or "ex gratia payment" – Whether High Court erred in calculating pension amount – Federal Constitution, Articles 125(7), (9), 147 – Judges' Remuneration Act 1971, ss 15B, 15B(1), (2), 19 – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 1984, s 15(1), Third and Fourth Schedules – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Act 2014, s 15B(1) – Judges' Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2016 – Pensions Act 1980, s 3 – Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 – Pensions Ordinance 1951, s 5

George Pathmanathan a/l Michael Gandhi Nathan v Portcullis International Ltd & 2 Ors [2024] 6 AMR 622, HC

Civil procedure – Judgments and orders – Consent order – Dividend distributed based on accumulated profit of company – Auditors refused to comply with consent order – Application for variation filed – Whether by virtue of ss 131 and 132 of the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016"), consent order ought to be amended – Whether Companies Act 1965 applicable as consent order regulates issue that occurred before implementation of CA 2016 – Whether application ought to be allowed – Companies Act 1965 – Companies Act 2016, ss 131, 132, 619(4), 620(4)

Government of Malaysia v Azura binti Basri & Anor [2024] 6 AMR 630, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Appeal – Government filed action pursuant to motor vehicle accident after more than five years – Magistrate's Court struck out action for being time-barred – Whether applicable limitation for action by government was six years or two years – Whether government is bound by the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 72) (Sabah) – Limitation Act 1953 – Limitation Ordinance (Cap 72) (Sabah), Schedule, items 20, 97

Mayan ak Nayang v Berlian Stabil Sdn Bhd & 4 Ors [2024] 6 AMR 640, HC

Civil procedure – Disposal of case on point of law – Application for – Dispute over native customary rights and original jurisdiction of Native Court over subject matter – Whether facts undisputed for determination of questions of law posed – Whether applications ought to be allowed – Native Courts Ordinance 1992, ss 5(3)(a), (b), 12-16, 25(3)(a)(i), (ii) – Native Court Rules 1992 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14A, Order 33 r 2

Land law – Native customary land – Title – Suit filed to claim native customary right ("NCR") over land whereof subject matter already adjudicated upon by Native Courts – Whether suit contingent upon plaintiff's claim of NCR over land – Whether Native Court vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate on NCR's claims – Whether plaintiff could maintain suit without exhausting all remedies under the Native Courts Ordinance 1992 – Native Courts Ordinance 1992, ss 5(3)(a), (b), 12-16, 25(3)(a)(i), (ii) – Native Court Rules 1992 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14A, Order 33 r 2

Petroliam Nasional Berhad v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (and 2 Other Appeals) [2024] 6 AMR 651, HC

Revenue law – Income tax – Petroleum income tax – Business deductions – Appeal against decision of Special Commissioner of Income Tax ("SCIT") – Taxpayer's deductions on contribution made to National Trust Fund as well as expenses incurred for advertising and promotion, apportioned by respondent between Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and Income Tax Act 1967 – SCIT ruled in favour of respondent – Whether respondent empowered to apportion such deductions – Whether notice of additional assessment null and void – Whether imposition of penalty on taxpayer wrong in law – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Income Tax Act 1967 – Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967, ss 15(1), 22, 22(1), 72(1)

Public Prosecutor v Arsit bin Indanan [2024] 6 AMR 679, HC

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Accused and co-accused charged under ss 302 and 34 of the Penal Code – Prosecution withdrew charge against co-accused and heavily relied on his evidence as sole eyewitness – Whether elements of s 300(c) and s 302 of the Penal Code established – Whether accused failed to raise reasonable doubt upon prosecution case – Whether testimony of co-accused credible – Sentence to be imposed – Mitigating and aggravating factors – Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 – Evidence Act 1950, s 133 – Penal Code, ss 34, 300(c), 302