Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd (and Another Appeal) [2024] 8 AMR 881, CA

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Ex parte injunction – Appeal against – Appellant's action to restrain respondent from calling/receiving proceeds of bank guarantees dismissed – Respondent's application to set aside ex parte injunction granted to appellant allowed – Appellant allegedly failed to proceed with construction works – Notice of termination of contract issued during period covered by Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Act 2020 ("the Act") – Whether respondent's calling on bank guarantees unconscionable – Whether "unconscionability" could be separate and distinct ground to restraint calling on bank guarantees – Whether respondent precluded from exercising its rights under contract when the Act came into operation – Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Act 2020, s 7

Sunil Singh a/l Jeganathen Daniel & 2 Ors v Public Prosecutor [2024] 8 AMR 894, CA

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Kidnapping – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Deceased kidnapped for ransom and body dumped into the sea – Cause of death due to suffocation – Prosecution withdrew charges against co-accused ("SP4") and relied on SP4's evidence as sole eyewitness – Whether SP4's testimony corroborated and credible – Whether contradictions in SP4's testimony material – Whether circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove kidnapping for ransom by accused – Whether deceased's cause of death doubtful – Whether ingredients of s 300 of the Penal Code satisfied – Whether conviction and sentence safe – Kidnapping Act 1961, s 3 – Penal Code, ss 300, 300(c), 302

Gikibi bin Gautan v Public Prosecutor [2024] 8 AMR 934, HC

Dangerous drugs – Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Conviction for offence of self-administration of dangerous drugs under s 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act") – Sentence of two years' supervision – Whether due procedure followed for urine sample collection – Whether urine sample collected by officer above the rank of sergeant as required under s 31A(1A) of the Act – Whether adverse inference ought to be drawn against prosecution for not calling officers who allegedly collected urine sample as witnesses – Whether conviction and sentence safe – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 15(1)(a), 31A(1A), 37(k), 38B – Evidence Act 1950, ss 114(g), 134

Public Prosecutor v Vijaya Kumar a/l Youvan [2024] 8 AMR 943, HC

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Accused arrested two years after deceased's death – Deceased found with cigarette butt on his chest – Cause of death due to blunt trauma to head – No eyewitnesses to murder taking place – Whether prima facie case made out against accused – Whether prosecution witness who claimed to witness deceased leaving with accused, was credible witness – Defence of alibi – Whether rebutted – Whether identification parades were unfair to accused – Whether doctrine of "last seen together" applicable – Whether failure to collect all cigarette butts from crime scene prejudiced accused – Whether failure to call foreign workers, claimed to be present when murder took place, as witnesses created a material gap in prosecution's case – Whether circumstantial evidence in favour of prosecution or accused – Criminal Procedure Code, s 112 – Evidence Act 1950, ss 32(1)(i), 114(g) – Penal Code, ss 34, 300(a), (b), (c), (d), 302

Telekom Malaysia Berhad v Swis Resources Sdn Bhd [2024] 8 AMR 971, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Appeal – Suit struck out for non-compliance with pre-trial case management directions ("directions") – Witness statements and list of witnesses not filed within time set – Request for extension of time for filing – No response from court – Whether there was non-compliance with directions when suit struck out – Whether non-compliance minor – Whether appropriate for court to exercise its discretion under Order 34 r 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out claim– Whether directions preemptory in nature – Rules of Court 2012, Order 32 r 2(l), (m), (3)