Choong Nam Father & Sons Construction Sdn Bhd v Charern Properties Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 AMR 829, HC

Civil procedure – Writ of summons – Duration and renewal of – Application for – Whether application filed in line with Order 6 r 7(2A) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether filed within time period provided and before original writ expired – Whether earnest attempts made to service writ within a month of original writ – Whether application ought to be granted – Rules of Court 2012, Order 3 r 5, Order 6 r 7, 7(2A), Order 92 r 4

Ivory Glove Sdn Bhd v Assign Metal Components (M) Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 AMR 843, HC

Civil procedure – Appeal – Extension of time – Application for – Delay of 62 days to file notice of appeal against dismissal of application to set aside summary judgment – Whether affidavit in support of notice of appeal could be affirmed by party's counsel – Whether delay justified invocation of Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether delay ought to be condoned – Whether extension of time ought to be granted – Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, s 28(c) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 1A, Order 3 r 5, Order 14

KK Oriental Builder Sdn Bhd v Merchant Synergy Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 AMR 852, HC

Contract – Breach – Construction contract – Claim for unpaid works – Whether clause for progressive payments amended to monthly lumpsum payments – Whether works completed – Whether partial work abandoned by claimant – Whether defects rectified within stipulated time by claimant – Certificate of completion and compliance issued – Whether ought to be cancelled – Whether counterclaim of liquidated ascertained damages ought to be allowed – Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g)

P Ponnamal a/p Ponniah & 14 Ors v Goh Hwan Hua & 4 Ors [2024] 1 AMR 872, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Claim for repayment of sum arising out of breach of agreement – Monies claimed seized under s 50(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("the AMLATFPUA") – Whether claim barred under s 54(3) of the AMLATFPUA – Whether triable issues raised – Whether claim sufficiently particularised to disclose valid cause of action – Whether plain and obvious case to allow striking out application – Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, ss 50(1), 54(3) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19(1)

RCB Marketing Sdn Bhd v Milano Marketing Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 AMR 883, HC

Civil procedure – Amendments – Defence – Application for – Trademark infringement and passing off action – Proposed amendment sought to add fact of plaintiff's trademark registration applications – Opposition proceedings against said application pending at MyIPO – Whether application to amend defence ought to be allowed – Whether application delayed or changed character of suit – Whether amendment sought unrelated to issues relevant in suit and/or conflated issues to gain unfair advantage

Tunku Sofiah Jewa binti Tunku Md Jewa & Anor [2024] 1 AMR 890, HC

Land law – Ownership – Application for – Trustee passed away after signing declaration of trust for benefit of applicants – Whether trust created by Muslim valid and passes good title in landed property to beneficiaries – Whether property formed part of trustee's estate after death – Whether ownership ought to be granted to applicants based on declaration of trust – National Land Code, s 344

Trusts and trustees – Trust deed – Transfer of land – Trustee passed away after signing declaration of trust for benefit of applicants – Whether trust created by Muslim valid and passes good title in landed property to beneficiaries – Whether property formed part of trustee's estate after death – Whether ownership ought to be granted to applicants based on declaration of trust – National Land Code, s 344

Unicious Energy Pte Ltd v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of The Ship or Vessel “Alpine Mathilde” (No. IMO: 9380506) Registered at the Port of Hong Kong [2024] 1 AMR 898, HC

Shipping and maritime – Action in rem – Admiralty jurisdiction – Sales contract purporting to transfer ownership/title of cargo entered between cargo seller and buyer held to be sham transaction – Cargo seller subject to United States ("US") sanctions whilst cargo considered as "blocked property" – Cargo seller claimed delivery of cargo and arrested vessel purportedly for security for arbitration proceedings initiated in London – Whether vessel's owner as Liberian entity was "US persons" under the US sanctions laws and regulations – Whether cargo seller established cause of action against vessel's owner for delivery of cargo – Whether court had jurisdiction to arrest vessel as security for arbitration – Whether writ in rem and warrant of arrest amounted to application under s 11(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Whether vessel's owner ought to be permitted to discharge cargo for sale to third party – Arbitration Act 2005, ss 11(1)(c), 50 – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 24(b) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 69, Order 70 r 4 – Senior Courts Act 1981 (UK), ss 20-24