Leftenan Kolonel Shaifullizan bin Abd Aziz (Pegawai memerintah Batalion Ke-5 Rejimen Renjer DiRaja) & 3 Ors v Muhammad Maliki bin Abdul Halim (and Another Appeal) [2025] 5 AMR 1, CA

Armed forces – Service offences and punishments – Close arrest – Validity of – Accused arrested and detained pending completion of investigation and disposal of trial by court-martial – Whether detentions or close arrest lawful – Whether violated Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution – Whether investigation delayed – Whether charge could be disposed of summarily – Whether accused entitled to damages – Armed Forces Act 1972, ss 2, 51, 93(1), 94(1), (2), 96(3), 104 – Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, rules 13(1), 14, 14(2), 15(3), 16(1) – Federal Constitution, Article 5(1) – Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, ss 3(b), 54(1), (2)

Eza Carpet Distributor Sdn Bhd v Trocellen SEA Sdn Bhd [2025] 5 AMR 32, HC

Intellectual property – Utility innovation – Infringement and invalidation – Defendant's products allegedly infringed plaintiff's utility innovation ("UI") – Counterclaim to invalidate UI on grounds of lack of novelty and non-compliance with Patents Act 1983 and Patents Regulations 1986 – Whether UI novel and valid – Whether suit time-barred – Whether defendant's products infringed plaintiff's UI – Patents Act 1983, ss 30(3A), 56, 59(3), Schedule 2 – Patents Regulations 1986

Kabaz Sdn Bhd v Sarawak Consolidated Industries Berhad [2025] 5 AMR 57, HC

Contract – Sale of property – Letter of offer – Validity of – Failure to proceed with sale of property – Payment of earnest deposit pursuant to letter of offer to purchase made – Tenancy agreement entered subsequently – Claim for unpaid rent and counterclaim for refund or set-off of earnest deposit – Whether letter of offer valid – Whether court erred in law and/or fact in allowing counterclaim – Contracts Act 1950, s 66

Ravendran a/l Kalangiam v Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Berhad [2025] 5 AMR 65, HC

Civil procedure – Judgments and orders – Setting aside – Impeachment of order declaring insurance policy void and unenforceable under s 96(3) of Road Transport Act 1987 – Allegation of fraud – Plaintiff not party to policy – Whether plaintiff entitled to impeach declaratory order – Whether sufficient evidence of fraud adduced to justify setting aside of declaratory order – Road Transport Act 1987, s 96(3)

Insurance – Motor insurance – Third party claim – Impeachment of order granted declaring policy void and unenforceable under s 96(3) of Road Transport Act 1987 – Allegation of fraud – Plaintiff not party to policy – Whether plaintiff entitled to impeach declaratory order – Whether sufficient evidence of fraud adduced to justify setting aside of declaratory order – Road Transport Act 1987, s 96(3)

Roland Julai anak Enchana v Public Prosecutor [2025] 5 AMR 79, HC

Criminal procedure – Appeals – Preliminary objection – Dispute regarding service of grounds of judgment – Whether appeal filed within prescribed time – Criminal Procedure Code, s 307(4), (9) – Penal Code, s 376(2)(d) – Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017, s 14(a)

Saraleane Nattaya binti Azmi v Techna-X Berhad [2025] 5 AMR 86, HC

Contract – Breach – Share purchase agreement – Claim for alleged non-payment of balance purchase price – Whether consideration fully paid – Whether variation of payment terms valid – Whether plaintiff's conduct sufficient to constitute oppression or unfairness – Whether claim barred

Tan Bee Geok v Thai Kim Sim & Anor (Lin Woon Fui – Party Cited) [2025] 5 AMR 101, HC

Civil procedure – Contempt of court – Breach or non-compliance with court order – Injunction restraining disposition of assets – Obligations to disclose bank account balances and employees provident fund ("EPF") amounts – Whether failure to comply with obligations constituted breach of court order – Whether non-compliance willful and deliberate – Scope and interpretation of "all assets" in court order – Whether included EPF – Effective date of disclosure – Whether limited disclosure amounts to non-compliance – Appropriate sentence to be imposed – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s 102

Family law – Judicial separation – Application for ancillary relief – Injunction restraining disposition of assets – Obligations to disclose bank account balances and employees provident fund ("EPF") amounts – Whether failure to comply with obligations constituted breach of court order – Whether non-compliance willful and deliberate – Scope and interpretation of "all assets" in court order – Whether included EPF – Effective date of disclosure – Whether limited disclosure amounts to non-compliance – Appropriate sentence to be imposed – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s 102