Skip to main content

All Malaysia Reports (AMR) - Week 20

/
Content updates

Recently added cases from AMR to Westlaw Asia

Chong Chee Piao & 4 Ors v Koh Wah Leong (sebagai Pengerusi Pertubuhan Penganut-Penganut Ting Leong Keng Lee Hu Tong Chu, Pantai Remis, Manjong, Perak) [2023] 3 AMR 845, CA

Land law – Ownership – Possession of land – Appeal – High Court allowed claim of occupier of land premised on purported constructive trust created for construction of temple – Survey plan of land adduced as fresh evidence post trial at appeal stage – Whether constructive trust created over entire land – Whether counterclaim time-barred – Whether High Court's order tenable – Whether fresh evidence adduced at appeal stage admissible – Limitation Act 1953, s 9(1) – National Land Code 1965

Tort – Trespass – Appeal – High Court allowed claim of occupier of land premised on purported constructive trust created for construction of temple – Survey plan of land adduced as fresh evidence post trial at appeal stage – Whether constructive trust created over entire land – Whether counterclaim time-barred – Whether High Court's order tenable – Whether fresh evidence adduced at appeal stage admissible – Limitation Act 1953, s 9(1) – National Land Code 1965

Alam Langkawi Sdn Bhd v Yew Sow Chee (didakwa dalam kapasiti sendiri dan juga sebagai eksekutor wasiat Soon Eng Kooi (No. K/P: 600316-07-5623), si mati) [2023] 3 AMR 870, HC

Civil procedure – Contempt of court – Breach or non-compliance with order of court – Company's director failed to produce financial documents despite direction from court – Whether director served with order of court and knew contents thereof – Whether prima facie case for committal proceedings made out – Rules of Court 2012, Order 45 rr 5, 7

Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v Menteri Kewangan Malaysia [2023] 3 AMR 877, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Direction sought against minister's non-response to letter seeking exercise of his powers under ss 135 and 127(3A) of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the Act") against additional assessment notices – Whether leave for judicial review ought to be granted – Whether minister could be compelled by order of court to exercise his power under the Act – Whether Director General of Inland Revenue misapplied law in making additional assessments – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 99, 127(3A), 135 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53

Christina Carolina Gerarda Johanna Verstappen v Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & 3 Ors [2023] 3 AMR 895, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Cause of death declared as suicide by police – Pursuant to High Court's order, cause of death was re-investigated and re-classified as murder – No decision or conclusion in investigation for more than three years – Whether defendants breached statutory duties and/or negligent in execution thereof – Whether there was cause of action against defendants – Whether triable issues existed – Police Act 1967 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (d)

Public Prosecutor v Mohd Fadil bin Zainan [2023] 3 AMR 904, HC

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Accused physically assaulted wife who did not die immediately but two days after assault – Cause of death inconclusive – Whether accused allegedly had mental health issues – Whether prima facie case made out for offence of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Criminal Procedure Code, s 180(3), (4) – Penal Code, ss 302, 304(b)

Ultimate Reserves Sdn Bhd v BHO Sdn Bhd [2023] 3 AMR 929, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of defence – Appeal – Sessions Court dismissed application to strike out defence – Appeal opposed on grounds of non-maintainability under s 28(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; suit lacked essential particulars; and correspondence marked "without prejudice" relied upon by appellant was inadmissible – Whether defence ought to be struck out – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 28, 28(1) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 12

Yong Wei Hau v Florence Chin Su Ching [2023] 3 AMR 939, HC

Family law – Divorce – Consent order – Application to rescind and vary terms of consent order – Grounds of mistake of fact, misrepresentation and material change in circumstances post issuance of consent order raised – Whether mistake of fact, misrepresentation and/or material change of circumstances proved to justify rescission and/or variation of consent order – Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, rule 63

 

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.