Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor v Dr Vijaendreh a/l Subramaniam & Anor [2025] 3 AMR 337, FC

Civil procedure – Originating summons – Legal tenability of declaratory reliefs sought – Court of Appeal granted declarations upholding medical practitioner's right to dispense Ivermectin, a Group B poison under Poisons Act 1952 – Whether declarations abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious – Whether declarations could be granted if they impede upon criminal proceeding or enforce matter rightly within jurisdiction of criminal courts – Whether court correct in granting declarations – Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984, ss 7(1), 15(1) – Poisons Act 1952, ss 17, 18, 19, 19(1)(a), 21, 21(1), First Schedule, Part I, Group A, Group B – Poisons Regulations 1952 – Sale of Drugs Act 1952, s 2

Professions – Medical practitioners – Rights and duties – Court of Appeal granted declarations upholding medical practitioner's right to dispense Ivermectin, a Group B poison under Poisons Act 1952 ("the PA") – Whether declarations abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious – Whether registered medical practitioner can dispense medication for purposes of medical treatment – Whether subject to Sale of Drugs Act 1952 and Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 – Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984, ss 7(1), 15(1) – Poisons Act 1952, ss 17, 18, 19, 19(1)(a), 21, 21(1), First Schedule, Part I, Group A, Group B – Poisons Regulations 1952 – Sale of Drugs Act 1952, s 2

Statutes – Interpretation or construction – Sale and supply of Group B poisons – Court of Appeal granted declarations upholding medical practitioner's right to dispense Ivermectin, a Group B poison under Poisons Act 1952 ("PA") – Whether registered medical practitioner can dispense medication for purposes of medical treatment – Whether subject to Sale of Drugs Act 1952 ("SDA") and Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 ("Regulations") – Whether PA overrides SDA regarding right to dispense Group B poisons – Whether anything ultra vires between the Regulations and PA as the former makes no reference to latter – Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984, ss 7(1), 15(1) – Poisons Act 1952, ss 17, 18, 19, 19(1)(a), 21, 21(1), First Schedule, Part I, Group A, Group B – Poisons Regulations 1952 – Sale of Drugs Act 1952, s 2

V Medical Services M Sdn Bhd v Swissray Asia Healthcare Co Ltd [2025] 3 AMR 379, FC

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Fortuna injunction – Claim for outstanding sum via statutory notice under the Companies Act 2016 arising out of distribution agreement – Application for Fortuna injunction filed and allowed by High Court – Lower threshold test enunciated in Salford Estates (No. 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd (No. 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1575 applied – Court of Appeal applied conventional test of existence of disputed debt on genuine and substantial grounds and set aside injunction – Test applicable for grant of Fortuna injunction when debt disputed but governed by arbitration – Whether debt genuinely disputed – Whether Fortuna injunction ought to be granted – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Arbitration Act 2005 – Companies Act 2016

Tan Ming Ann v Public Prosecutor [2025] 3 AMR 424, CA

Dangerous drugs – Trafficking – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – Appellant collected parcel containing Methamphetamine from courier office – Appellant arrested after tearing off affixed consignment note while walking out of office – Defence of innocent carrier raised – Sentence of death by hanging – Whether appellant in custody, control and possession of drugs – Whether offence of trafficking established – Whether drug analysis defective – Whether conviction and sentence safe – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s 39B(1)(a), First Schedule – Evidence Act 1950, s 8

C Jayakumar a/l S Chinniah (merupakan wakil diri kepada harta pusaka Chinniah a/l Sinnasamy, simati yang telah meninggal dunia pada 1.8.1998) v Dev Kumar a/l Santhiran (sebagai pentadbir harta pesaka de bonis non harta pesaka Sivagamyammal w/o Govindasamy) [2025] 3 AMR 442, HC

Civil procedure – Parties – Locus standi – Suit filed by plaintiff as personal representative of his father's estate without obtaining letters of administration – Whether plaintiff had locus standi to initiate suit – Whether court had power to strike out action brought by party lacking locus standi – Rules of Court 2012, Order 33, rr 2, 3, 5

Probate and administration – Estate – Letters of administration – Suit filed by plaintiff as personal representative of his father's estate without obtaining letters of administration – Whether plaintiff had locus standi to file suit – Whether court had power to strike out action brought by party lacking locus standi – Rules of Court 2012, Order 33, rr 2, 3, 5