Abdul Hakim bin Abdul Wahid v Mas Ermieyati binti Samsudin (and Another Appeal) [2023] 5 AMR 937, FC

Elections – Election petition – Striking out – Petitions struck out on grounds of limitation and insufficiency of material facts to establish cause of action – Whether petitions filed out of time – Whether s 38(1)(a) of the Election Offences Act 1954 ("EOA") applicable – Whether sufficient facts pleaded to constitute cause of action on treating voters and bribery under ss 8 and 10(a) of the EOA – Whether there was ambiguity in charges – Whether failure to provide particulars regarding appointment of respondent's agent rendered petition defective – Whether infringed rule 4(1)(b) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 – Whether requirements of s 32(a) and (c) of the Act fulfilled – Election Offences Act 1954, ss 8, 10, 10(a), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), 32(a), (c), 38(1)(a), (b)(ii) – Election Petition Rules 1954, rules 4(1)(a), (b), (2), 5

Wiramuda (M) Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2023] 5 AMR 967, FC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Compensation for acquisition of lands subjected to income tax – Landowner applied for judicial review to quash notice of assessment – High Court's dismissal of judicial review affirmed by Court of Appeal – Whether compensation chargeable to income tax – Whether s 4C of the Income Tax Act 1967 contravened Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution – Whether landowner deprived of adequate compensation granted in accordance with Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 4(a), 4C, 24(1)(aa) – Land Acquisition Act 1960, s 38(5) – Federal Constitution, Article 13, 13(2)

Constitutional law – Constitutional liberties and rights – Right to adequate compensation for compulsory acquisition – Whether compensation chargeable to income tax – Whether s 4C of the Income Tax Act 1967 contravened Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution – Whether landowner deprived of adequate compensation granted in accordance with Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 4(a), 4C – Federal Constitution, Article 13, 13(2)

Constitutional law – Legislation – Constitutionality of – Compensation for acquisition of lands subjected to income tax – Whether compensation chargeable to income tax – Whether s 4C of the Income Tax Act 1967 contravened Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution – Whether landowner deprived of adequate compensation granted in accordance with Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 4(a), 4C, 24(1)(aa) – Land Acquisition Act 1960, s 38(5) – Federal Constitution, Article 13, 13(2)

Revenue law – Income tax – Business income – Compulsory acquisition by government – Compensation paid to taxpayer – Whether taxable – Whether s 4C of the Income Tax Act 1967 contravened Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution – Whether landowner deprived of adequate compensation granted in accordance with Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 4(a), 4C, 24(1)(aa) – Land Acquisition Act 1960, s 38(5) – Federal Constitution, Article 13, 13(2)

Muhammad Nurhan Zikry bin Mohd Norashedy v Public Prosecutor (and 3 Other Appeals) [2023] 5 AMR 982, CA

Criminal law – Sexual offences against children – Physical sexual assault – Child offender ordered to be placed in Henry Gurney School – Appeal against – Whether there was serious misdirection by court in accepting probation report of welfare officer – Whether report contravened s 75(1)(b) of the Child Act 2001 – Whether court erred in law in ordering child to be sent to Henry Gurney School – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Child Act 2001, ss 71(1), 75(1)(b), (c)(i), (ii), 91(1)(a), 98 – Penal Code, ss 52B, 377C – Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, s 14(a)

Narendranpathy a/l Pathy v Public Prosecutor (and 3 Other Appeals) [2023] 5 AMR 1000, CA

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Accused not positively identified as assailant who attacked deceased – Accused's presence admitted but attack denied – Whether identity of persons who inflicted fatal injuries on deceased had been established – Whether trial judge failed to consider discrepancies and contradictions in evidence of identification witness – Whether there was absence of proof of common intention under s 34 of the Penal Code – Whether trial judge erred in law and fact to convict accused – Penal Code, ss 34, 302

Dr Ong Keh Ong v Loke Hon Mun & 2 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2023] 5 AMR 1010, HC

Tort – Defamation – Damages – Claim for damages for libel allowed – Appeal against – Cross-appeals on quantum of damages awarded – Whether tort of defamation proved – Whether impugned statements defamatory – Whether made with malicious intent – Whether made under qualified privilege and fair comment – Whether damages adequate – Whether appellate intervention warranted

Paul Raj a/l Samy Raj v Pulau Pinang Clinic Sdn Bhd (yang memiliki Hospital Gleneagles Penang) & 3 Ors [2023] 5 AMR 1028, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Claim for damages for tort of negligence – Alleged misdiagnosis and misadvise of cancer by doctors – Whether claim time-barred – Whether time started to run from when negligence committed or discovered – Whether s 6A of the Limitation Act 1953 applicable – Whether damages claimed for mental and emotional injury, a claim for personal injury – Civil Law Act 1956, s 14(3) – Limitation Act 1953, ss 6(1), 6A, 6A(1) – Limitation  (Amendment) Bill 2018

Public Prosecutor v Than Nwe Soe [2023] 5 AMR 1042, HC

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Circumstantial evidence adduced – Whether charges under s 300(c) of the Penal Code proven beyond reasonable doubt – Whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently strong to conclude deceased's death caused by accused – Evidence Act 1950, s 60(1)(b) – Penal Code, ss 300(c), 302