Badan Pengurusan Bersama Avenue K dan K Residence v City Properties Sdn Bhd & 7 Ors [2025] 2 AMR 593, CA

Building and common property – Joint management body – Voting rights at annual general meeting ("AGM") – Parcel owners denied right to vote due to arrears in charges and sinking fund contribution – Declarations sought to invalidate first and second AGMs via originating summons ("OS") – High Court ("HC") granted declarations solely based on existence of valid dispute – Whether HC misdirected – Whether parcel owners entitled to vote at AGM – Whether causes of action and reliefs sought overlapped with other pending suits – Whether OS could be dispose of without trial – Whether OS ought to be converted into writ – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Rules of Court 2012, Order 28 r 8 – Strata Management Act 2013, s 25(3), Second Schedule, paragraph 21(1), (2)

Civil procedure – Mode of commencement – Originating summons ("OS") – Parcel owners denied right to vote due to arrears in charges and sinking fund contribution – Declarations sought to invalidate first and second AGMs via OS – High Court ("HC") granted declarations solely based on existence of valid dispute – Whether HC misdirected – Whether parcel owners entitled to vote at AGM – Whether causes of action and reliefs sought overlapped with other pending suits – Whether OS could be dispose of without trial – Whether OS ought to be converted into writ – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Rules of Court 2012, Order 28 r 8 – Strata Management Act 2013, s 25(3), Second Schedule, paragraph 21(1), (2)

Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [2025] 2 AMR 614, CA

Tort – Conspiracy – Damages – Company alleged conspiracy to injure and breach of fiduciary duties against minority shareholder and nominated directors – Whether court should accept non-sinister inference where two inferences equally arise from same facts which do not concern witness's credibility – Whether breach of fiduciary duties and tort of conspiracy proved – Whether company entitled to damages – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Companies Act 2016, ss 132(1), 213(1), (2), 214(1), (1)(a), (b), (c), (d), 217(1), 218(1)(b), (c) – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 72 – Evidence Act 1950, ss 8(1), 101(1), (2), 102

HAT v PAT [2025] 2 AMR 656, HC

Civil procedure – Courts – Jurisdiction – Husband applied for anti-suit injunction to restrain wife from proceeding with divorce in Singapore court – Parties Malaysian citizen and domiciled in Malaysia – Marriage registered in Malaysia – Wife resided in Singapore since 2008 – Husband's earlier application for stay of Singapore divorce proceedings dismissed by Singapore court and appeal filed – Whether husband's application delayed – Whether husband already submitted to Singapore's jurisdiction – Whether Malaysia natural forum to hear divorce proceedings – Whether continuation of Singapore divorce proceedings vexatious or oppressive to husband – Whether allowing application would offend principle of comity – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s 107

Kenneth Kong Kok Leong & 25 Ors v Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd [2025] 2 AMR 682, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Claim for liquidated ascertained damages ("LAD") by purchasers – Period of vacant possession delivery in agreement varied pursuant to extension of time ("EOT") granted by Controller ("pre-SPA EOT") – Subsequent EOT granted during COVID-19 vide judicial review ("JR") application challenged – Purchasers applied to stay suit pending JR application – Whether suit an abuse of court's process – Whether purchasers should file separate actions in appropriate subordinate courts – Whether pre-SPA EOT valid in light of Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd (and 4 Other Appeals) [2024] 6 AMR 813 – Whether there was duplicity of proceedings – Whether stay should be granted – Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, Schedule H – Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020, ss 35, 38C

Housing development – Contract of sale – Modification of terms – Extension of time ("EOT") for delivery of vacant possession in agreement varied ("pre-SPA EOT") – Claim for liquidated ascertained damages ("LAD") by purchasers – Subsequent EOT granted during COVID-19 vide judicial review ("JR") application challenged – Purchasers applied to stay suit pending JR application – Whether suit an abuse of court's process – Whether purchasers should file separate actions in appropriate subordinate courts – Whether pre-SPA EOT valid in light of Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd (and 4 Other Appeals) [2024] 6 AMR 813 – Whether there was duplicity of proceedings – Whether stay should be granted – Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, Schedule H – Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020, ss 35, 38C

PW Textile Manufacturing Sendirian Berhad v Messrs Gan Teik Chee & Ho (sued as a firm) [2025] 2 AMR 699, HC

Professions – Advocates and solicitors – Bill of costs – Application for taxation eight months after bills issued – Failure to provide itemised bills – No prior agreement in respect of legal fees – Whether application barred by limitation – Whether s 121 or s 126 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 applicable – Whether doctrine of laches applicable – Whether special circumstances existed to warrant taxation of bills – Whether bills exorbitant – Legal Profession Act 1976, ss 121, 126, 126(1)