Malayan Banking Berhad v Tan Soek Phee & 3 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2023] 7 AMR 757, CA

Banking law – Securities for advances – Guarantees – Principal debtor clause – Claim against borrower not prosecuted and time-barred by limitation – Whether principal debtor clause in guarantee may be relied on to institute claim against guarantor as principal debtor – Scope of principal debtor clause – Limitation Act 1953

Tort – Negligence – Professional negligence – Damages – Whether client can claim for lost opportunity to recover damages from suit negligently handled by lawyer – Whether chances of success in suit will affect damages liable to be paid by negligent lawyer – Limitation Act 1953

Tort – Negligence – Professional negligence – Lawyer failing to conduct matters timeously resulting in them being dismissed for want of prosecution – Claim for professional negligence – Whether plaintiff must provide expert evidence on standard of care of lawyer – Whether court equally well placed to independently appraise and evaluate the requisite standard of care – Limitation Act 1953

Sebumi Magnetik Sdn Bhd v Twinsky Seafood Restaurant (Complex Asia City) Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Twinsky Seafood Restaurant Sdn Bhd) & 3 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2023] 7 AMR 769, CA

Civil procedure – Pleadings – Statement of claim – Double rent or double value for tenant holding over – Whether general prayer sufficient – Whether claim must be specifically pleaded – Civil Law Act 1956, s 28(4)(a) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 15

Landlord and tenant – Rental – Action for double rental – Tenancy terminated – Tenant holding over – Whether landlord should be compensated with double rental – Whether claim must be specifically pleaded – Whether general prayer sufficient – Civil Law Act 1956, s 28(4)(a) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 15

Ho Chung Meng v ASP Che Intan binti Subri & 2 Ors [2023] 7 AMR 783, HC

Criminal procedure – Habeas corpus – Application for – Detention under s 4(5) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ("SOSMA") and the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 – Whether police failed to notify next-of-kin of applicant's arrest – Whether police failed to give counsel access to applicant after lapse of 48 hours – Whether resulted in detention being invalid and unlawful – Whether prerequisite to application of SOSMA satisfied by police to warrant detention under SOSMA – Whether detention vague and ambiguous – Whether failure to give reasons for arrest – Whether application academic since applicant was already charged at Sessions Court – Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, s 26D – Criminal Procedure Code, s 28A – Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 – Federal Constitution, Article 5(3) – Internal Security Act 1960 – Prevention of Crime Act 1959 – Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, ss 4(2), (5), (9), 5(1), (1)(a), (b), 13

Khaw Tiew Chai v Lee Chai Seng & 3 Ors [2023] 7 AMR 817, HC

Damages (General) – Action for – Tort of malicious prosecution – Acquittal of charges without defence being called – Reliance on Sessions Court judge's remarks to prove malicious prosecution – Whether malicious prosecution proved – Whether entitled to general, aggravated and/or exemplary damages

Tort – Malicious prosecution – Damages – Acquittal of charges without defence being called – Reliance on Sessions Court judge's remarks to prove malicious prosecution – Whether five elements of malicious prosecution proved – Whether claimant entitled to general, aggravated and/or exemplary damages

Lowell Builders Sdn Bhd v Kemudi Tiara Engineering Sdn Bhd (and 2 Other Originating Summonses) [2023] 7 AMR 855, HC

Contract – Adjudication and payment disputes – Adjudication decision – Setting aside, stay and enforcement applications – Whether adjudicator failed to consider material defence raised – Whether there was breach of natural justice – Whether adjudication decision should be set aside – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, s 15, 15(d)