Lim Guan Eng v Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] 3 AMR 585, CA

Tort – Defamation – Libel – Statements made published on online platform – Admissions by respondents that statements referred to appellant and published to third party – Whether statements defamatory of appellant – Whether respondents successfully established defence of fair comment and reportage – Whether issues raised in statements were matters of public interest – Whether repetition rule applicable against second respondent who relied on defence of reportage and fair comment – Whether respondents' defence of fair comment defeated by malice

Le Apple Boutique Hotel (KLCC) Sdn Bhd v Thum May Yin & Anor [2025] 3 AMR 616, HC

Civil procedure – Summary judgment – Application for – Allegations of breach of fiduciary duties, statutory duties and/or fidelity – Directors affirmed affidavits compromising company's recovery case against third party – Whether breach of directors' duties proved – Whether triable issues raised – Whether application ought to be allowed – Companies Act 2016, s 465(1)(c), (h)

Company law – Directors – Fiduciary duties – Allegations of breach of fiduciary duties, statutory duties and/or fidelity – Directors affirmed affidavits compromising company's recovery case against third party – Whether summary judgment ought to be entered against directors – Whether breach of directors' duties proved – Whether triable issues raised – Companies Act 2016, s 465(1)(c), (h)

Multi Automotive Service and Assist Sdn Bhd & 4 Ors v Proton Edar Sdn Bhd [2025] 3 AMR 644, HC

Company law – Directors – Liability – Lifting of corporate veil – Claim for refund of overpayment for services not rendered upon expiry of agreement – Service provider company ceased operations – New company with similar directors and shareholders formed to take over business – Whether new company established to defraud claimant and avoid payment of refund – No terms for refund in agreement – Whether refund still payable – Whether corporate veil ought to be lifted to make directors personally liable – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Rules of Court 2012, Order 55

Contract – Agreement – Service provider agreement – Claim for refund of overpayment for services not rendered upon expiry of agreement – Service provider company ceased operations – New company with similar directors and shareholders formed to take over business – Whether new company established to defraud claimant and avoid payment of refund – No terms for refund in agreement – Whether refund still payable – Whether corporate veil ought to be lifted to make directors personally liable – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Rules of Court 2012, Order 55

Pimpinan Jati Sdn Bhd v KK Waterfront Hotel Sdn Bhd [2025] 3 AMR 651, HC

Civil procedure – Amendments – Statement of claim – Suit for outstanding sum for breach of tenancy agreement – Application filed to further amend re-amended statement of claim – Whether application "eve of trial" amendments or tactical manoeuvre – Whether proposed amendments would change character of suit – Whether application ought to be allowed

Public Bank Berhad v GMP Masyhur Sdn Bhd [2025] 3 AMR 659, HC

Civil procedure – Stay – Application for – Court granted order for directions to set reserve price and auction date for charged property – Stay application filed to "defer and stay" auction and "defer and stay" enforcement of court order pending appeals – Whether there were merits in the appeals – Whether the appeals would be rendered nugatory if stay granted – Whether special circumstances existed that warranted stay – Whether property holds sentimental value sufficient to constitute special circumstance – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 73

Syarikat Green Ladang Sdn Bhd v Messrs Chin Lau Wong & Foo (Sandakan Branch) [2025] 3 AMR 669, HC

Civil procedure – Judgments and orders – Appeal against – Magistrate allowed order to disqualify law firm from representing plaintiff – Whether order appealable – Whether order constituted "decision" within meaning of s 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Advocates (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1988, rules 3(a), 5(a) – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 3 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14A, Order 33 r 2

Professions – Advocates and solicitors – Representation – Application to disqualify law firm from representing plaintiff – Plaintiff requested refund of professional fees paid to defendant for preparation of memoranda of transfers to be made to law firm – Whether law firm committed breach of the Advocates (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1988 ("the Rules") – Whether law firm would be embarrassed in manner prescribed under rule 3(a) of the Rules if plaintiff continued to be represented – Whether difficult for law firm to maintain its professional independence – Whether strong case established to disqualify law firm – Whether affidavit to oppose application ought to have been filed by law firm and not plaintiff – Advocates (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1988, rules 3(a), 5(a) – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 3 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14A, Order 33 r 2

Yayasan Buah Pinggang Kebangsaan Malaysia v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2025] 3 AMR 679, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Revocation of tax exemption given to charitable foundation under s 44(6) of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the Act") by Director General of Inland Revenue ("DGIR") – Conditions for tax exemption allegedly not complied with – Whether DGIR's revocation correct and in accordance with the Act – Whether non-compliance of conditions deliberate – Whether condition communicated/notified by DGIR – Whether DGIR's decision unreasonable and/or illegal, warranting court's intervention – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 44(6), (6)(a), 145, 148 – Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 3 r 2

Revenue law – Income tax – Tax exemption – Revocation of tax exemption given to charitable foundation under s 44(6) of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the Act") by Director General of Inland Revenue ("DGIR") – Conditions for tax exemption allegedly not complied with – Whether DGIR's revocation correct and in accordance with the Act – Whether non-compliance of conditions deliberate – Whether condition communicated/notified by DGIR – Whether DGIR's decision unreasonable and/or illegal warranting court's intervention – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 44(6), (6)(a), 145, 148 – Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 3 r 2