Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy & 15 Ors v YB Dato’ Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (Timbalan Perdana Menteri/Menteri Dalam Negeri) & 4 Ors [2023] 2 AMR 201, CA

Civil procedure – Striking out – Originating summons – Appeal – High Court order struck out amended originating summons ("AOS") primarily for seeking declaratory relief directly affecting person not named as party in AOS as regards his permanent resident status in Malaysia – Allegation of involvement in terrorist activities and threat to security of the Federation – Whether plaintiffs had locus standi – Whether AOS plainly and obviously unsustainable and ought to be struck out – Whether judicial review should have been filed instead of AOS – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19, Order 53

Ceres Jewels Sdn Bhd & Anor v Star Hill Hotel Sdn Bhd [2023] 2 AMR 218, HC

Contract – Breach – Damages – Appeal against Magistrate's Court's decision allowing claim for payment of outstanding sum due to breach of contract – Reliance placed on alleged separate oral agreement with third party and issue of estoppel – Whether appellate interference warranted – Whether contract breached by non-payment of outstanding sum – Whether doctrine of estoppel applicable – Evidence Act 1950, s 101

KYS College Sdn Bhd v MBSB Bank Berhad (formerly known as Asian Finance Bank Berhad) [2023] 2 AMR 226, HC

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Fortuna injunction – Statutory notice under s 466 of the Companies Act 2016 issued for unpaid outstanding sum under consent judgment – Whether bona fide dispute of debt exists – Whether applicant solvent – Whether COVID-19's financial impact over applicant justifies grant of Fortuna injunction – Whether irreparable damage would be caused to applicant – Companies Act 2016, s 466, 466(1) – National Land Code 1965, s 254 – Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988

Liau Oi Choo v Johny Tanujaya Tjioeng (and An Originating Summons) [2023] 2 AMR 243, HC

Family law – Ancillary relief – Division of matrimonial assets and maintenance – Husband alleged no income source due to criminal charges lodged at behest of wife – Allegation that investment items stolen by wife – Proceeds of sale and right over properties owned by wife before marriage sought by husband – Whether child and spousal maintenance payable by wife or husband – Whether matrimonial assets ought to be divided as prayed for by wife or husband – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 76(5), 88(2)(b), 93(1), (2)

Family law – Children – Custody – Children under sole custody of wife – During interim custody of husband, children abused for which charge under s 31 of the Child Act 2001 lodged – Whether sole guardianship and custody, care and control of children ought to be granted to wife or husband – Child Act 2001, s 31 – Evidence Act 1950, s 103

Revenue Point Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2023] 2 AMR 271, HC

Revenue law – Real property gains tax – Business income – Gains from disposal of apartment units subjected to Income Tax Act 1967 ("ITA") instead of the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 ("RPGTA") – Whether gains derived from disposal of apartment units taxable under s 4(a) of the ITA or the RPGTA – Whether chargeable income stated in best judgment assessment for years of assessment accurate – Whether imposition of penalty for years of assessment justified – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 4(a), 90(1), (2), (3), 112(3) – Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976

Tan Han Kwan & 3 Ors v Ch’ng Kong San & 2 Ors [2023] 2 AMR 290, HC

Civil procedure – Amendments – Writ and statement of claim – Amendment application filed post trial when directions to file written submissions already issued – Cause of action allegedly already struck out previously introduced – Whether amendment application bona fide – Whether prejudice not compensable in costs would be caused if application allowed – Rules of Court 2012, Order 20 r 5

Teoh Kah Yong v Public Prosecutor [2023] 2 AMR 304, HC

Constitutional law – Courts – Jurisdiction – Appeal against Sessions Court's dismissal of application to refer constitutional question of inconsistency of s 233(1)(a) and 233(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 with Articles 5, 8 and 10 of the Federal Constitution to High Court – Whether there was any appealable error – Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, s 233, 233(1)(a), (3) – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 30 – Federal Constitution, Articles 5, 8, 10