Hong Leong Bank Berhad v Ten Jing Enterprise Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2025] 5 AMR 821, CA

Tort – Negligence – Breach of statutory duty – Banker and customer – Seizure order issued under Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("Act") – Bank released seized funds to Department of Insolvency instead of plaintiff based on winding-up order – Whether seizure order prevailed over winding-up order – Whether bank had statutory duty to preserve funds – Whether duty breached rendering bank negligent – Whether plaintiff bona fide third party and entitled to seized funds – Whether private law cause of action arose – Whether s 52A of the Act applies retrospectively – Whether Customs officer negligent – Whether High Court erred in computing interest – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Anti-Money Laundering, Anti- Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, ss 44, 50, 52A, 54

Marjan Petrovski (suing as the dependant and personal representative and/or administrator of the estate of Marco Stefan Petrovski, deceased) v Datuk Seri Utama Ir Haji Idris bin Hj Haron & 33 Ors [2025] 5 AMR 849, HC

Tort – Negligence – Breach of duty – Professional footballer died after being struck by lightning – Deceased's father sued Melaka United Soccer Association ("MUSA") for negligence and breach of contract – Allegations of inadequate emergency response – Whether MUSA owed duty of care to provide adequate emergency medical care – Whether duty breached and materially contributed to deceased's death – Applicability of FIFA Emergency Medical Manual Guideline – Whether failure to obtain personal accident insurance amounted to breach of contract – Whether damages proved – Computation of loss of support – Civil Law Act 1956, ss 7(3)(iv)(d), 8

OIB Properties (C) Sdn Bhd v Persatuan Penduduk Taman Myra Meranti, Puchong, Selangor (disaman melalui pengerusinya Balarama Krshna a/l Ramaloo)        [2025] 5 AMR 871, HC

Tort – Nuisance – Private nuisance – Claim for damages – Developer sued residents association for obstructing access to road for underground cabling works – Residents association counterclaimed for alleged damage affecting enjoyment of property – Whether developer's right to use access road interfered with – Whether interference unreasonable, constituting actionable nuisance – Whether special damages proved by developer – Whether residents association had locus standi to file counterclaim – Whether defence and counterclaim proven

PE Setia Construction Sdn Bhd v Mangkubumi Sdn Bhd [2025] 5 AMR 886, HC

Contract – Construction contract – Termination – Subcontractor's claim for unpaid dues and wrongful termination – Claim based on joint measurement sheet verified by consultant – Deductions imposed by main contractor – Adjudication decision not challenged – Whether suit barred under s 13 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 – Whether termination lawful – Whether subcontractor entitled to sums claimed – Whether deductions by main contractor valid – Whether revised contract sum enforceable – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss 13, 37

Re Sherly Morista [2025] 5 AMR 900, HC

Civil procedure – Courts – Jurisdiction – Marriage solemnised in Indonesia, registered in Malaysia – Divorce granted by Indonesian court – Whether foreign divorce decree registrable under s 107(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 – Whether Malaysian court competent to register foreign divorce decree – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 22, 23, 31, 104, 107(3)

Family law – Divorce – Registration of – Foreign divorce decree – Marriage solemnised in Indonesia, registered in Malaysia – Divorce granted by Indonesian court – Whether foreign divorce decree registrable under s 107(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 – Whether Malaysian court competent to register foreign divorce decree – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 22, 23, 31, 104, 107(3)

Zhong E Sdn Bhd v Flowcrete Malaysia Sdn (formerly known as Flowcrete Nippon Sdn Bhd) & 4 Ors [2025] 5 AMR 917, HC

Contract – Agreements – Guarantee agreement – Validity of – Claim against former officers of wound up company for payment of unpaid invoices – Allegations that no real or physical goods transacted – Whether transactions genuine sale of goods or disguised moneylending – Whether transactions void under s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Whether guarantee agreement valid and enforceable – Contracts Act 1950, s 24 – Moneylending Act 1951, s 5