Yap Kim Hin & Anor v Chua Boon Hock & 2 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2025] 2 AMR 121, FC

Civil procedure – Courts – Jurisdiction – Court of Appeal ("COA") directed respondents to file joinder application within stipulated timeline, failing which their suit would be struck off ("first COA order") – Failure to comply – High Court ("HC") struck out application but granted application for liberty to file afresh ("HC consequential order") – COA affirmed decision and varied first COA order – Whether HC could disregard first COA order by granting HC consequential order – Whether COA functus officio and acted in excess of jurisdiction in making its decision – Whether COA plainly wrong in varying first COA order – Rules of Court 2012, Order 1A

Civil procedure – Judgments and orders – Consequential order – Court of Appeal ("COA") directed respondents to file joinder application within stipulated timeline, failing which their suit would be struck off ("first COA order") – Failure to comply – High Court ("HC") struck out application but granted application for liberty to file afresh ("HC consequential order") – COA affirmed decision and varied first COA order – Whether HC could disregard first COA order by granting HC consequential order – Whether COA functus officio and acted in excess of jurisdiction in making its decision – Whether COA plainly wrong in varying first COA order – Rules of Court 2012, Order 1A

Fahri, Azzat & Co (sebuah firma) & Anor v Lembaga Kelayakan Profesion Undang-Undang [2025] 2 AMR 129, CA

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review ("JR") – Application for articled clerkship rejected following its abolition as entry mode into legal profession ("decision") – High Court upheld decision and dismissed JR application – Whether s 26 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("LPA") barred filing of JR application – Whether decision made under s 5 of the LPA not "decision" made within meaning of s 26 – Whether respondent acted ultra vires the LPA in abolishing articled clerkship – Whether appellants failed to comply with Legal Profession (Articled Clerks) Rules 1979 – Whether justified as ground for decision – Legal Profession (Articled Clerks) Rules 1979 – Legal Profession Act 1976, ss 21, 22, 23, 25(2), 26, 26(1)

Pendakwa Raya Malaysia & 2 Ors v Wong Ong Hua & Anor [2025] 2 AMR 152, CA

Constitutional law – Legislation – Constitutionality of ss 4 and 20 of the Extradition Act 1992 ("the Act") – Respondents suspected to be fugitive criminals and were arrested pursuant to warrant under s 13 of the Act – Return of respondents requisitioned – Minister of Home Affairs issued order under s 4 of the Act and directed Sessions Court to apply s 20 to extradition proceedings – Whether ss 4 and 20 of the Act contravened doctrine of separation of powers and Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution – Whether judicial power needs to be exercised in extradition proceedings – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Extradition Act 1992, ss 4, 12, 13(1)(b), 16(1), 19, 20, 20(1)(d) – Federal Constitution, Articles 4(1), 5(1), (2), 8(1), (2), 9(1), (2), 121(1)

GONG v HONG [2025] 2 AMR 166, HC

Family law – Divorce – Consent order – Application to vary terms by wife – Whether grounds of material change in circumstances raised – Whether application complied with rule 63 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 – Whether material change in circumstances established to justify reliefs sought – Whether variation of consent order reasonable and for children's welfare – Whether order for attachment of husband's earnings justified – Whether application ought to be allowed – Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, rules 2, 61, 63 – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 96, 97

Harpal Singh Gill v Sharmila Kaur Gill d/o Harcharan Singh & Anor [2025] 2 AMR 196, HC

Probate and administration – Estate – Letters of administration – Mother appointed as sole executrix and beneficiary upon father's death – Mother died intestate before probate proceedings could materialise – Disputes as to who should be administrator – No objection to first defendant administering estate – Plaintiff applied to be made co-administrator with first defendant – Whether first defendant should be appointed as sole administrator – Whether appointing plaintiff as co-administrator would hamper economical and expeditious administration of estate – Distribution Act 1958, s 6

Kwang Ee Fu & Anor v Ho Hau Wong & 15 Ors [2025] 2 AMR 206, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Originating summons ("OS") – OS filed to set aside judgment obtained in earlier suit ("suit 14") – Suit 14 involved rights in land owned by companies and not plaintiffs as shareholders – Whether OS should be struck out – Whether plaintiffs had locus standi to file OS – Whether claim vexatious and abuse of court's process – Whether judgment passed in suit 14 contravened principles of natural justice and s 340 of the National Land Code – National Land Code, s 340

Vinvest Capital Holdings Berhad (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai Vivicom Intl Holdings Berhad) v EA Holdings Berhad & 2 Ors [2025] 2 AMR 224, HC

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Interim injunction – Application filed to restrain further dealing of shares in first defendant – Application to restrain extraordinary general meeting ("EGM") from being convened – Whether plaintiff had right to prohibit first defendant from convening EGM – Whether such order if granted, would be over-reaching – Whether injunction can be granted for non-pleaded issue – Whether application ought to be allowed