Cheng Hin Teng (mendakwa sebagai wakil diri selaku suami dan benifisiari yang sah kepada Wan Mei Lee, si mati dan estetnya) v Dr Anuar bin Md Yasin & Anor [2025] 1 AMR 233, CA

Civil procedure – Striking out – Appeal against – Action for medical negligence struck out on ground of res judicata – Suit previously filed against same parties dismissed after full trial ("first suit") – Appeal against first suit withdrawn – Second suit amended to add fraud as cause of action to impeach first suit – New evidence discovered, allegedly revealing concealment of material facts in first suit – Claim of contradiction in evidence – Whether doctrine of res judicata applicable against second suit – Whether alleged new evidence could have been discovered during first suit – Whether second suit an abuse of process of court

Chong Fook Fatt v Public Prosecutor [2025] 1 AMR 254, CA

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence – No direct evidence of crime – Prosecution relied on evidence of accomplice ("PW14") to establish prima facie case against accused – Accused denied shooting victim with shotgun and claimed that PW14 was untruthful – Whether PW14's evidence corroborated – Whether corroboration of evidence can be circumstantial – Whether information that led to discovery of shotgun, gunny sack and bullets, was within meaning of s 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 – Whether information received by police must be in writing – Whether PW14 was credible witness – Whether injury that led to victim's death was caused intentionally – Whether trial judge adequately considered accused's defence – Whether conviction safe – Evidence Act 1950, ss 27, 114(b), 133

Ezreen Nasuha binti Razuli v Public Prosecutor [2025] 1 AMR 290, HC

Criminal procedure – Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appellant pleaded guilty to offence under s 37(1) of the Minor Offences Ordinance (Cap 56) (Sarawak) ("the Ordinance") – Allegation that charge was defective as it involved monies in bank account – Whether said monies were "chose in action" and not tangible property – Whether fell within definition of "anything" under s 37(1) of the Ordinance – Whether includes both tangible and intangible property – Definition of "possession" under s 37(1) of the Ordinance – Whether charge valid – Whether magistrate correctly explained nature and consequences of guilty plea – Whether there was non-compliance with s 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code – Whether appellant prejudiced – Criminal Procedure Code, s 173(b) – Minor Offences Act 1955, s 29(1) – Minor Offences Ordinance (Cap 56) (Sarawak), s 37(1),(4), (6), (9)

Statutes – Interpretation – Meaning of "anything" and "possession" in s 37 of the Minor Offences Ordinance (Cap 56) (Sarawak) – Allegation that charge was defective as it involved monies in bank account – Whether said monies were "chose in action" and not tangible property – Whether fell within definition of "anything" under s 37(1) of the Ordinance – Whether includes both tangible and intangible property – Definition of "possession" under s 37(1) of the Ordinance – Whether charge valid – Criminal Procedure Code, s 173(b) – Minor Offences Act 1955, s 29(1) – Minor Offences Ordinance (Cap 56) (Sarawak), s 37(1),(4), (6), (9)

Luno Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Yew See Tak [2025] 1 AMR 302, HC

Tort – Negligence – Duty of care – Breach – Appeal against – Claim for negligence against recognised market operator ("RMO") for cryptocurrency allowed – Grant of special and exemplary damages – Allegation of unauthorised transactions and withdrawals taking place in customer's account – Whether RMO owed duty of care to customer – Whether Sessions Court judge erred in finding RMO breached duty of care – Whether Sessions Court judge plainly wrong in allowing customer's claim

Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Chan Lee Lee [2025] 1 AMR 321, HC

Public authorities – Statutory body – Supply of electricity – Appeal against dismissal of claim for loss of revenue resulting from alleged meter tampering – Denial of involvement by owner of premises – Whether there was sufficient evidence of meter tampering – Whether appellant required to prove owner of premises tampered with meter under s 38 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ("ESA") – Whether appellant entitled to claim for loss of revenue – Whether requirements under s 38(4) of the ESA to prove claim complied with – Whether appeal ought to be allowed – Electricity Supply Act 1990, s 38, 38(4), (5)

Wincourt Sdn Bhd v Elvy binti Adangku & Anor [2025] 1 AMR 332, HC

Contract – Termination – Sublease agreement – Native nominee enlisted by non-native owned company to effect purchase of native land – Land subleased to company for 30 years – Disputes arose leading to termination of agreement and demand for repossession of land – Whether parties' arrangement in acquiring land contravened law and public policy – Whether transaction rendered illegal and unenforceable – Contracts Act 1950 – Federal Constitution, Article 161A(6)(b) – Land Ordinance (Cap 68) (Sabah), ss 17(1), (5), 64

Land law – Native land – Land dealings with natives – Native nominee enlisted by non-native owned company to effect purchase of native land – Land subleased to company for 30 years – Disputes arose leading to termination of agreement and demand for repossession of land – Whether parties' arrangement in acquiring land contravened law and public policy – Whether transaction rendered illegal and unenforceable – Contracts Act 1950 – Federal Constitution, Article 161A(6)(b) – Land Ordinance (Cap 68) (Sabah), ss 17(1), (5), 64