Sarmiina Sdn Bhd v Gerry Ho & 5 Ors [2023] 6 AMR 237, FC

Customs and excise – Seizure of goods – Appeal – Claim for wrongful and continuous seizure of goods – Courts below dismissed claim primarily upon lack of locus standi – Whether continuous seizure of goods lawful – Whether non-compliance with s 128(2) and (3) of the Customs Act 1967 fatal – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Customs Act 1967, ss 114, 114(1), 128, 128(1)(a), (b), (c), (2), (3) – Federal Constitution, Article 13(1)

Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Sdn Bhd v Accolade Land Sdn Bhd [2023] 6 AMR 260, CA

Civil procedure – Striking out – Notice of appeal – Consent order entered for determination of claim in two tranches – First tranche on liability and second tranche on damages – Whether decision determining first tranche qualified as final judgment – Whether appealable – Courts of Judicature Act 1972, ss 3, 67, 67(1) – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rules 5, 27, 48, 69, 105

Civil procedure – Courts – Jurisdiction – Appeal – Consent order entered for determination of claim in two tranches – First tranche on liability and second tranche on damages – Whether decision determining first tranche qualified as final judgment – Whether appealable – Whether court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such appeal – Courts of Judicature Act 1972, ss 3, 67, 67(1) – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rules 5, 27, 48, 69, 105

Saj Ranhill Sdn Bhd v SWM Greentech Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 6 AMR 272, CA

Tort – Negligence – Claim for damages – Water treatment plant shut down – Alleged leachate spillage from landfill into Sungai Benut – Gazetted water catchment area under the Fourth Schedule to the Environmental Quality (Sewerage and Industrial Effluents) Regulations 1979 – Whether duty of care owed to users of Sungai Benut – Whether duty of care breached – Whether negligent – Whether loss, expenses and damages caused – Whether damages ought to be awarded and to what extent – Environmental Quality Act 1974 – Environmental Quality (Sewerage and Industrial Effluents) Regulations 1979, Fourth Schedule

B & 3 Ors v Rockwills Trustee Berhad [2023] 6 AMR 292, HC

Trusts and trustees – Private trust – Termination – Application for – Deceased's will created two trusts in respect of assets entitled by son – Trust period until son attains age of 35 – Termination sought essentially due to financing of deceased's company – Whether termination of trusts justified on ground of urgent need – Whether son entitled to property before age of 35

Caterpillar Financial Services Malaysia Sdn Bhd v CIPTA Teknologi Sdn Bhd [2023] 6 AMR 307, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Winding-up petition – Application for – Whether petition bona fide – Whether petition amounted to abuse of court's process – Non-compliance with rule 7 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 – Preliminary objection raised – Whether non-compliance fatal – Whether petition ought to be struck out – Companies Act 2016, ss 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a) – Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, rule 7, 7(2) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19(1)(d), Order 45 r 1, Order 92 r 4

Pendakwa Raya v Zamzuri bin Abdul Ghaffar [2023] 6 AMR 322, HC

Criminal law – Corruption – Accepting gratification – Whether element of accepting gratification proved – Whether gratification corruptly solicited – Whether prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt – Whether accused ought to be called to enter his defence – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, ss 16(a)(A), 50

Syah Reza bin Abd Rahman @ Drahman & Anor (trading under the firm and style of Rezzman Services) v Falcon Maintenance & Training Sdn Bhd (Bestrich Star Sdn Bhd – Appellant) [2023] 6 AMR 329, HC

Civil procedure – Interpleader proceedings – Interpleader summons – Appeal against dismissal of – Items seized pursuant to judgment obtained by execution creditor – Appellant claimed ownership on seized properties which were kept with execution debtor pursuant to their independent agreement – Whether appellant established ownership – Whether appellant could claim ownership of property belonging to its director – Whether application tainted with mala fide – Rules of Court 2012, Order 17