Skip to main content

All Malaysia Reports (AMR) - Week 46

Content updates

Recently added cases from AMR to Westlaw Asia

Tan Kim Chuan v Tan Kim Tian & 2 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2022] 8 AMR 1, FC
Company law – Liquidators – Exercise and control of powers – Applications to High Court for directions on disposal of disputed immovable properties – Disagreement by joint liquidators and objection by contributory as to method of disposal despite initial agreement by liquidators that disposal by way of right of first refusal would be in company's best interests – Finding by High Court that disposal should be by way of open tender in view of disagreement and objection raised – Whether High Court's decision neither advisory nor purely supervisory in nature but judgment within ambit of s 67(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Whether High Court's decision under s 237(3) of the Companies Act 1965 or s 487(3) of the Companies Act 2016, appealable – Companies Act 1965, ss 236(3), 237(3) – Companies Act 2016, s 487(3) – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 67(1)

Conweld Engineering Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors v Goh Swee Boh @ Goh Cheng Kin & Anor [2022] 8 AMR 25, CA
Tort – Damages – Collateral abuse of process – Plaintiffs sued defendants on basis that winding-up petition and orders obtained by defendants relating thereto, a manifestation of tort of collateral abuse of process – Whether petition filed and orders obtained for collateral purpose – Whether elements of tort of abuse of process established – Whether second and third plaintiffs not being parties to the petition, lacked locus standi to sue for tort of abuse of process – Whether Malaysian courts should continue to recognise tort of collateral abuse of process – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19

All Kurma Sdn Bhd v Teoh Heng Tatt & 7 Ors [2022] 8 AMR 49, HC
Civil procedure – Injunctions – Mareva injunction – Application for – Cross-applications for setting aside – Whether requirements of Order 29 rr 1(2), (2A)(c), (d), (e) of the Rules of Court 2012 satisfied – Whether elements for grant of Mareva injunction satisfied – Whether balance of convenience principle applicable in Mareva applications – Rules of Court 2012, Order 29 rr 1(2), (2A)(c), (d), (e)

Kumar a/l Selvaraj v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & 3 Ors [2022] 8 AMR 79, HC
Criminal procedure – Preventive detention – Restriction order – Judicial review of – Detention of applicant followed by restriction order – Whether unlawful for non-compliance with pith and substance of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and Article 149 of the Federal Constitution – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s 15(1)(a) – Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, ss 6(1), 7(1) – Federal Constitution, Articles 5(1), 149, 149(1)

Rosley anak Johnny v Public Prosecutor [2022] 8 AMR 94, HC
Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Statutory rape – Appeal against sentence of three years' detention at Henry Gurney School – Appellant and victim were minors and engaged in consensual sex – Whether sentence manifestly excessive and unsuitable – Whether three years' period of detention under s 75 of the Child Act 2001, absolute – Child Act 2001, s 75, 75(3) – Penal Code, s 376(1)

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.