Skip to main content

All Malaysia Reports (AMR) - Week 12 (Part 2)

/
Content updates

Recently added cases from AMR to Westlaw Asia

Ranjan Paramalingam & Anor v Persatuan Penduduk Taman Bangsar Kuala Lumpur (disaman melalui presidennya Nitesh Malani) [2023] 2 AMR 645, CA

Tort – Nuisance – Damages – Appeal – Security measures undertaken alleged to cause private and public nuisance and in breach of personal data laws – High Court dismissed objections to security scheme – Whether pleadings established torts – Whether tort of nuisance and/or breach of personal data laws proved – Whether security scheme valid – Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956 – Local Government Act 1976 – Personal Data Protection Act 2010, ss 4(a)-(d), 130(7) – Societies Act 1966

Aneka Retail (M) Sdn Bhd v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & 2 Ors [2023] 2 AMR 674, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Leave sought for order of certiorari to quash Industrial Court's awards – Industrial Court upheld constructive dismissal objected against due to availability of appeal remedy under s 33C of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 as amended vide Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 – Whether judicial review application maintainable – Whether appeal, the appropriate remedy – Whether stay of execution of awards ought to be granted – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss 20, 20(3), 33C – Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020, s 35 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53

Labour law – Employment – Constructive dismissal – Leave sought for an order of certiorari to quash Industrial Court's awards – Industrial Court upheld constructive dismissal objected due to availability of appeal remedy under s 33C of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 as amended vide Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 – Whether judicial review application maintainable – Whether appeal, the appropriate remedy – Whether stay of execution of awards ought to be granted – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss 20, 20(3), 33C – Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020, s 35 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53

Kuala Kencana Development Sdn Bhd & 6 Ors v Bala Subramaniam Rasu (as liquidator of Valientview Construction Sdn Bhd) [2023] 2 AMR 683, HC

Professions – Advocates and solicitors – Acceptance of brief – Conflict of interest – Application to disqualify and/or recuse firm from acting for breach of rules 3, 4 and 5(a) of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 – Whether solicitors ought to be disqualified and/or recused from case – Evidence Act 1950, s 126 – Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, rules 3, 4, 5(a)

Premalla a/p Navanthapany Samy v Tetuan Othman Hashim & Co (Sebuah Firma) & Anor [2023] 2 AMR 697, HC

Tort – Negligence – Breach of duty – Solicitor-client relationship – Negligence claimed against solicitors' advice – Whether advice not to appeal against High Court's decision allegedly arising out of fraudulent intentions – Whether solicitors breached duty of care and fiduciary duty – Whether admission of liability by solicitors – Whether claim against solicitors sustainable – Contracts Act 1950, ss 24, 25 – Moneylenders Act 1951, ss 2-5, 15 – National Land Code 1965, s 267

Public Prosecutor v Maxland Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 2 AMR 731, HC

Criminal procedure – Acquittal and discharge – Appeal – Respondents jointly charged under ss 20(2) and 23(2) of the Forest Enactment 1968 for illegal logging activities – Whether reasonable doubt raised on prosecution case – Whether respondents physically working on site where logs were felled – Whether third party company responsible for illegal felling – Whether respondents principal of third party company and liable for its illegal acts – Forest Enactment 1968, ss 20(2), 23(2), 34(e), 38(8)

Forestry – Illegal taking of forest produce – Appeal – Respondents jointly charged under ss 20(2) and 23(2) of the Forest Enactment 1968 for illegal logging activities, acquitted and discharged – Whether reasonable doubt raised on prosecution case – Whether respondents physically working on site where logs were felled – Whether third party company responsible for illegal felling – Whether respondents principal of third party company and liable for its illegal acts – Forest Enactment 1968, ss 20(2), 23(2), 34(e), 38(8)

 

By Thomson Reuters Malaysia Editorial Team
Malaysia Editorial Team

Speak to a consultant

Can't find an answer to your question?
Contact our support team.

Request training

Contact our team to arrange training.

Tell us what you think

We'd love to hear what you think
of our products and support.