Kerajaan Malaysia v Batu Kemas Industri Sdn Bhd (and 2 Other Appeals) [2025] 2 AMR 833, CA

Damages (General) – Assessment – Appeal against – Federal Court remitted case to High Court and ordered for assessment of damages with specific directions – No mention of pre- and post-judgment interest to be awarded – Parties not satisfied with assessments made by High Court – Whether pre- and post-judgment interest ought to have been awarded – Whether pre-judgment interest as of right in law – Whether High Court plainly wrong in its assessments of damages – Whether High Court could rely on claims supported by documents marked as "ID" or indirect documentary evidence – Whether High Court acted within scope of claims allowed by Federal Court

UEM Land Berhad v Menteri Kewangan Malaysia (and Another Appeal) [2025] 2 AMR 853, CA

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Company requested Minister of Finance ("MOF") to give tax exemption and/or directions to Director-General of Inland Revenue ("DGIR") – Non-response by MOF treated as rejection of request – Whether MOF's non-response amounted to decision/omission amenable to judicial review – Whether ss 127(3A) and 135 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the ITA") only applicable to unlawfully imposed tax – Whether s 135 of the ITA extend to exercise of DGIR's power of assessment – Whether unlawfully levied taxes solely within jurisdiction of Special Commissioners of Income Tax – Whether order of certiorari could be sought – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 99, 99(1), 127, 127(3A), 135 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53 r 2(4)

Revenue law – Income tax – Exemptions from tax – Company requested Minister of Finance ("MOF") to give tax exemption and/or directions to Director-General of Inland Revenue ("DGIR") – Non-response by MOF treated as rejection of request – Whether MOF's non-response amounted to decision/omission amenable to judicial review – Whether ss 127(3A) and 135 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the ITA") only applicable to unlawfully imposed tax – Whether s 135 of the ITA extend to exercise of DGIR's power of assessment – Whether unlawfully levied taxes solely within jurisdiction of Special Commissioners of Income Tax – Whether order of certiorari could be sought – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 99, 99(1), 127, 127(3A), 135 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53 r 2(4)

Bahvest Resources Berhad & Anor v Datuk Lo Fui Ming & 3 Ors (Lo Fui Ming & 4 Ors – Proposed Contemnors) [2025] 2 AMR 870, HC

Civil procedure – Contempt of court – Breach or non-compliance with court order – Injunction order restrained lessor from hindering sub-lessee's use of land and facilities – Alleged breach by lessor's directors – Committal application filed – Whether mandatory for notice to show cause to be served on proposed contemnors prior to application – Whether contempt proved – Rules of Court 2012, Order 52 rr 2B, 4(3), Order 45 r 7(4)

Golden Crescent Sdn Bhd v PDC Associates Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 2 AMR 882, HC

Company law – Meetings – Extraordinary general meeting ("EGM") – Application seeking orders to convene EGM with modified quorum requirements – Deadlock arose due to minority shareholder's ("D2") deliberate non-attendance at previous attempted EGMs – Whether such action constituted oppression under s 346 of the Companies Act 2016 ("the Act") – Quorum requirements under shareholders agreement differed from company's articles of association ("AOA") – Whether AOA prevailed over conflicting provision of agreement – Whether there was impracticability in holding meetings, necessitating court's intervention under s 314 of the Act – Whether genuine deadlock existed – Whether notices of EGM properly served – Whether mandatory to serve notice on company's auditor – Companies Act 2016, ss 33(1), 36(3), 314, 321, 346, 582

Pendakwa Raya v Vikneswaran a/l Mailan & Anor [2025] 2 AMR 903, HC

Customs and excise – Offences – Conveying prohibited goods – Appeal against accused persons' acquittal and discharge – Dismissal of application for forfeiture of lorry in which prohibited goods found – Goods wrapped in black plastic loaded onto lorry by third party – Whether accused knowingly transported prohibited goods – Whether magistrate considered presumption of knowledge and applied correct burden and standard of proof – Whether maximum evaluation of evidence carried out at end of prosecution's case – Whether there was any misdirection – Whether offences proved beyond a reasonable doubt – Whether forfeiture of lorry ought to be allowed – Customs Act 1967, s 135(1)(e), (2) – Excise Act 1976, s 74(1)(d), (2)

Tye Wan Oon & Anor (kedua-duanya mendakwa sebagai President dan Bendahari Pertubuhan Penganut Dewa Kew Loong Sern Tze (Cheng Choo Tze), Batu Maung, Pulau Pinang) v Loh Ban Hock (didakwa atas kapasiti individu) & 2 Ors [2025] 2 AMR 923, HC

Civil procedure – Res judicata – Applicability of – Plaintiffs filed suit to set aside consent judgment obtained in previous suit – Dismissal of similar application filed previously upheld by Court of Appeal – New grounds of challenge added – Whether plaintiffs estopped from relitigating issues – Whether issues raised now ought to have been raised previously – Whether doctrine of res judicata applicable – Whether suit ought to be struck out – Government Proceedings Act 1956, s 9

Civil procedure – Striking out – Application for – Plaintiffs filed suit to set aside consent judgment obtained in previous suit – Dismissal of similar application filed previously upheld by Court of Appeal – New grounds of challenge added – Whether plaintiffs estopped from relitigating issues – Whether issues raised now ought to have been raised previously – Whether doctrine of res judicata applicable – Whether suit ought to be struck out – Government Proceedings Act 1956, s 9