Pusat Khidmat Pembangunan Usahawan YaPEIM Sdn Bhd v Peh Lian Hwa & 3 Or [2025] 3 AMR 941, CA

Contract – Agreements – Share sale agreement – Claim for refund of deposit forfeited by respondents – Failure to pay balance purchase price within deadline due to cancellation of funds sought by appellant – Whether condition precedent regarding payment of purchase price outlined in agreement satisfied – Whether agreement frustrated, justifying forfeiture of deposit – Whether non-party's internal issues relevant to agreement

Contract – Deposit – Forfeiture of – Share sale agreement – Claim for refund of deposit forfeited by respondents – Failure to pay balance purchase price within deadline due to cancellation of funds sought by appellant – Whether condition precedent regarding payment of purchase price outlined in agreement satisfied – Whether agreement frustrated, justifying forfeiture of deposit – Whether non-party's internal issues relevant to agreement

SPM Energy Sdn Bhd & Anor v Multi Discovery Sdn Bhd [2025] 3 AMR 953, CA

Contract – Breach – Construction contract – Claim for damages and unpaid works – Contract terminated by main contractor due to demobilisation at project site and absence of financial commitment to subcontractors – Whether termination valid – Whether contract breached and by whom – Whether conditional payment clause invalid when no adjudication proceedings commenced – Whether justified to pierce main contractor's corporate veil – Whether subcontractor entitled to sums towards completed work, retention and advance despite its breach of contract – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss 2, 4, 35, 35(1), (2)(a), 40 – Evidence Act 1950, s 8(2)

Lai Kiat Yeong v HSBC (Malaysia) Trustee Berhad [2025] 3 AMR 1005, HC

Trusts and trustees – Trustees – Appointment of – Refusal to appoint new trustee replacing existing sole trustee – Letter notifying filing of application to appoint Amanah Raya Berhad ("ARB") as new trustee issued – Whether action to prohibit ARB's appointment as new trustee premature – Whether letter amounted to notice under s 12 of the Public Trust Corporation Act 1995 – Whether existing trustee could be compelled to act as trustee – Whether existing trustee empowered to appoint new trustee – Public Trust Corporation Act 1995, s 12, 12(5), (6) – Specific Relief Act 1950, ss 51, 52 – Trustee Act 1949, s 40(1)

Q&M Dental Group (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Tye Chee Wah & 3 Ors [2025] 3 AMR 1015, HC

Arbitration – Award – Enforcement of – Foreign arbitration award – Ex parte order obtained for award to be registered in High Court of Malaya – Application filed to set aside ex parte order – Whether award in breach of public policy and not enforceable – Whether application an attempt to re-litigate issues adjudicated in arbitration – Whether award ought to be first enforced at seat of arbitration before registration in Malaysia could be applied – Whether award ought to be set aside – Arbitration Act 2005, ss 38, 39 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 69 rr 8, 9

Civil procedure – Judgments and orders – Foreign judgment – Recognition and enforcement of – Ex parte order obtained for award to be registered in High Court of Malaya – Application filed to set aside ex parte order – Whether award in breach of public policy and not enforceable – Whether application an attempt to re-litigate issues adjudicated in arbitration – Whether award ought to be first enforced at seat of arbitration before registration in Malaysia could be applied – Whether award ought to be set aside – Arbitration Act 2005, ss 38, 39 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 69 rr 8, 9

RAH v RAL [2025] 3 AMR 1037, HC

Family law – Children – Custody and maintenance – Application for – Three embryos created and frozen at in vitro fertilisation ("IVF") clinic during marriage – IVF process proceeded with despite parties no longer being together, resulting in birth of the child – Wife sought guardianship, custody care and control of child and two remaining frozen embryos – Whether wife entitled to control of frozen embryos – Whether husband could be forced to take parental or financial responsibility of potential future children – Whether frozen embryos possess personhood or could be treated as property – Right to procreate versus right to avoid parenthood – Whether wife's claim on maintenance justified – Whether access to child should be granted to husband – Federal Constitution, Article 5 – Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976