Hemraj & Co Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2023] 1 AMR 725, FC

Tort – Negligence – Non-delegable duty – Public utility company's underground cable damaged due to negligence of independent contractors carrying out routine residential construction work hired by homeowner – Whether homeowner owed non-delegable duty of care for negligence of independent contractors – Whether special relationship existed between homeowner and company to impose non-delegable duty of care on homeowner – Whether non-delegable duty of care ought to be specifically pleaded – Electricity Supply Act 1990, s 37(12)(a), (b)

KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v CECA Gold Company Limited & Anor [2023] 1 AMR 744, CA

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Interim injunctions – Appeal – High Court allowed bank guarantee to be called upon for alleged breach of contract governed by laws of Singapore – Refuge sought under s 7 of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 ("Act 829") for non-performance of contract – Whether declaratory relief could be granted under s 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 – Whether bank, being non-party to contract, can be restrained – Whether action of calling upon bank guarantee unconscionable and unreasonable – Whether protection under s 7 of Act 829 applicable – Whether Malaysian law provision applicable extra-territorially and liable to be ignored when contract governed by Singapore laws – Applicable law in event of conflict– Arbitration Act 2005, s 11 – Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020, s 7

Mohamad Fadhilah bin Bantut v Public Prosecutor (and Another Appeal) [2023] 1 AMR 761, HC

Dangerous drugs – Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Conviction for offence of self-administration of dangerous drugs under s 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentence of seven years' imprisonment and two years' supervision – One bottle of urine sample admitted in evidence instead of two bottles as required by IGSO F103 guidelines – Whether conviction and sentence safe – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s 15(1)(a) – Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983, s 2 – Police Act 1967, s 97

Safwa Global Builders (M) Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors v Hanson Quarry Products Sdn Bhd [2023] 1 AMR 781, HC

Civil procedure – Summary judgment – Application for – Appeal against decision allowing summary judgment – Supplier and buyer entered into credit terms wherein directors of company executed letter of guarantee and indemnity, alleged to be discharged due to revised credit limit, non-issuance of prior demand and one director's resignation – Buyer admitted outstanding dues in unprivileged settlement communications – Whether there were triable issues – Whether letter of guarantee and indemnity of continuous nature – Whether director of company discharged of liability due to resignation and no prior demand – Whether settlement communication admissible – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 r 1

YYM (memohon untuk pihak mereka sendiri dan sebagai wakil litigasi XXXXXXX, seorang kanak-kanak) v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara & 2 Ors [2023] 1 AMR 796, HC

Constitutional law – Citizenship – Citizenship by operation of law – Abandoned child adopted by Malaysian citizen – Identity of biological parents of child unknown – Citizenship status of child in birth certificate stated as "non-citizen" – Whether child entitled to be declared citizen of Malaysia – Adoption Act 1952, s 25A, 25A(5) – Federal Constitution, Article 14(1)(b), Second Schedule, section 1(a) of Part II, section 19B of Part III – Rules of Court 2012, Order 28 rr 4(2), (3), (4), 8(1)

Zakri Afandi bin Ismail v Ikwan Hafiz bin Jamaludin & Anor (and Another Suit) [2023] 1 AMR 816, HC

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Interim injunction – Company's director challenged his removal and transfer of subject shares pending which, injunction applications filed to restrain alleged transferee to deal with subject shares – Whether there were bona fide serious issues to be tried – Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of applicant – Whether damages was adequate remedy – Whether injunction applications barred by limitation – Whether issues raised in present suit already determined in another case