Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd [2025] 5 AMR 121, FC

Evidence – Admissibility – Disputed documents – Suit for recovery of money – Payment vouchers allegedly tampered with post-signature – Originals not produced – Disputed documents initially marked for identification and later converted to exhibits – Maker of documents not called – Whether correct procedure adopted in admitting disputed documents as exhibits – Whether contents hearsay – Whether marking exhibits automatically proved authenticity and truth of contents – Whether maker of documents must be called to verify disputed documents – Whether admission of signature sufficient to admit contents

Perbadanan Pengurusan One Tanjong v Province Valley Sdn Bhd [2025] 5 AMR 139, CA

Tort – Negligence – Breach of duty – Fire safety defects identified after issuance of certificate of fitness for occupation ("CF") – Failure to pursue action against local authority – Whether CF conclusive of compliance with approved building plans – Whether developer violated fire safety regulations – Whether breach of statutory duty established – Whether High Court committed appealable error in not allowing suit for negligence against developer

Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan & Anor v Tan Sri Haji Mohd Isa bin Dato’ Haji Abdul Samad & 20 Ors [2025] 5 AMR 153, HC

Civil procedure – Proceedings through remote communication technology – Attendance of witnesses – Application to testify via Zoom in public interest case – Witness residing overseas – Whether remote testimony would prejudice other parties – Whether court's inherent power could be invoked to disallow remote testimony – Whether judicial efficiency and fairness warranted physical attendance – Rules of Court 2012, Order 33A r 3, Order 92 r 4

Evidence – Witnesses – Mode of giving evidence – Application to testify via Zoom in public interest case – Witness residing overseas – Whether remote testimony would prejudice other parties – Whether court's inherent power could be invoked to disallow remote testimony – Whether judicial efficiency and fairness warranted physical attendance – Rules of Court 2012, Order 33A r 3, Order 92 r 4

Low Huei Ying & Anor v Andrew Gregory Sewell (Beramal di bawah nama dan gaya Tetuan Andrew Sewell) [2025] 5 AMR 166, HC

Civil procedure – Contempt of court – Committal proceedings – Suit to prevent disclosure of confidential and private information – Former solicitor-client relationship – 48 charges against plaintiff's statement alleging false information, scandalising court, obstructing administration of justice – Burden of proof – Whether contempt proved beyond reasonable doubt – Rules of Court 2012, Order 29 r 1, Order 92 r 4

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Interim injunction – Ad interim injunction granted during pending of application in suit to prevent disclosure of confidential and private information – Former solicitor-client relationship – Risk of disclosure of confidential information prejudicial to foreign proceedings – Whether serious question to be tried – Whether balance of convenience favoured grant of injunction – Whether damages adequate remedy – Whether ad interim injunction ought to be struck out – Whether defendant's application seeking committal order against plaintiff's statements ought to be allowed – Rules of Court 2012, Order 29 r 1, Order 92 r 4

Restoran Naiz Ali Sdn Bhd & Anor v A Cerenio Resources Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors (Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Shabir – Proposed Intervener) [2025] 5 AMR 187, HC

Civil procedure – Parties – Intervention – Application by proposed intervener to be joined as defendant – Competing claims to trademark ownership – Whether plaintiffs can be forced to sue proposed intervener – Whether proposed intervener had interest in the action and necessity to intervene – Whether application ought to be allowed – Rules of Court 2012, Order 15 r 6(2)(b)

Sim Soon Construction & Trading v Noble Energy Construction Sdn Bhd [2025] 5 AMR 205, HC

Companies – Winding up – Petition – Failure to pay undisputed debt upon statutory demand – Petition not based on judgment sum – Whether respondent deemed unable to pay its debts – Whether genuine and substantial dispute of debt raised – Whether respondent solvent – Whether respondent could dispute authenticity of its own documents – Companies Act 2016, ss 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a)

Sukdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh v Termit Kaur a/p Ranjit Singh [2025] 5 AMR 214, HC

Contract – Investment arrangement – Breach – Alleged agreement to invest money and share profits – Claim for return of money – Counterclaim alleging illegal moneylending and return of sum already paid – Whether investment arrangement established – Whether unjust enrichment proved against defendant – Whether Sessions Court erred in finding of facts in favour of plaintiff and dismissing counterclaim – Whether appellate intervention warranted