Ketheeswaran a/l Kanagaratnam & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2024] 1 AMR 953, FC

Constitutional law – Legislation – Constitutionality of – Section 61A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 ("ATIPSOM") – Admission of deposition of trafficked person or smuggled migrant as prima facie evidence – Whether s 61A of ATIPSOM constitutional – Whether judicial power of deciding upon prima facie evidence intruded by s 61A of ATIPSOM – Whether violated doctrine of separation of power under Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution ("FC") – Whether exclusion of right to cross-examine amounts to contravention of Article 5(1) of FC – Whether s 61A of ATIPSOM denies right to equality and violates Article 8(1) of the FC – Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, ss 12, 52, 61A, 61A(1)(a), (b) – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss 30, 84, 85(2) – Criminal Procedure Code – Evidence Act 1950 – Federal Constitution, Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 121(1) – Immigration Act 1959/63, ss 32, 33, 56(1) – Penal Code, s 34

Criminal law – Anti-trafficking in persons and anti-smuggling of migrants – Deposition of trafficked person or smuggled migrant – Admission of deposition as prima facie evidence – Whether s 61A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 ("ATIPSOM) constitutional – Whether judicial power of deciding upon prima facie evidence intruded by s 61A of ATIPSOM – Whether violated doctrine of separation of power under Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution ("FC") – Whether exclusion of right to cross-examine amounts to contravention of Article 5(1) of FC – Whether s 61A of ATIPSOM denies right to equality and violates Article 8(1) of the FC – Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, ss 12, 52, 61A, 61A(1)(a), (b) – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss 30, 84, 85(2) – Criminal Procedure Code – Evidence Act 1950 – Federal Constitution, Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 121(1) – Immigration Act 1959/63, ss 32, 33, 56(1) – Penal Code, s 34

Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor (and Another Appeal) [2024] 1 AMR 997, CA

Building and common property – Maintenance charges – Rates – Mixed development project with residential and commercial parcels – Whether developer and/or management corporation empowered to fix different rates for maintenance charges and contribution to sinking fund – Whether different rates of charges could be imposed for parcels which were different in nature or purpose – Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 – Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 – Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, Schedule H – Strata Management Act 2013, ss 12(8), 52(2), (7), 58(c), 59(b), 60(3)(b), 65, Chapter 4 – Strata Titles Act 1985, s 17A

BAZ Consolidated Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2024] 1 AMR 1024, HC

Revenue law – Assessments and appeals – Additional assessments – Income received by letting of properties declared and taxed as business income – Pursuant to public ruling, income taxed as rental income resulting in capital allowance on properties withdrawn and added back in computation of assessment – Whether income business income under s 4(a) or rental income under s 4(d) the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the ITA") – Whether public ruling has force of law – Whether imposition of penalty under s 113(2) of the ITA justified – Whether disallowance of administration expenses and capital allowance to taxpayer valid – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 4, 4(a), (d), 33(1), (1)(a)(i), (ii), 113(2), 124(1), 138A

Mohd Hatta bin Sanuri v YAB Perdana Menteri Malaysia Ketujuh Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad & 4 Ors [2024] 1 AMR 1043, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Malaysian citizen claimed negligence and misfeasance in public office of Executive for wrongful termination of Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail project resulting in compensation payable from public exchequer to Government of Singapore – Compensation allegedly caused enormous economic loss and denial of first-class international level transportation that was expedient, safe, and affordable – Whether claim abuse of power – Whether reasonable cause of action established – Whether subject-matter non-justiciable – Whether locus standi established – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 7(1)

Perbadanan Pengurusan Suria Stonor v Woodtec Vision Sdn Bhd & 11 Ors [2024] 1 AMR 1057, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Writ and statement of claim – Application filed to set aside all cause papers under Order 27 r 3 and Order 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC") – Grounds based on allegation that claim is baseless, frivolous and vexatious – Whether such provisions allow for suit to be struck out – Whether application abuse of court's process and a ruse to escape non-appealable consequences of Order 18 r 19 of the ROC – Whether application maintainable – Whether triable issues existed – Whether claim ought to be struck out – Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19, Order 27, Order 27 r 3, 3(2), Order 92, Order 92 r 4