Ibrahim bin Hashim v Devi Mulya Tristiati & Anor [2023] 7 AMR 109, HC

Contract – Breach – Marital promises and conditions – Transfer of property during marriage – Property charged as security for loan – Whether any contract entered between spouses – Whether breached – Whether property transferred due to undue influence, manipulation, coercion or domination – Whether there was tort of conversion, detinue, trespass and/or unlawful interference – Whether bank subsequent purchaser of property and acquired indefeasible interest under s 340(3) of the National Land Code 1965 – Contracts Act 1950, s 16(2) – National Land Code 1965, ss 5, 340, 340(3)

Land law – Indefeasibility – Title and interest – Transfer of property during marriage – Property charged as security for loan – Whether any contract entered between spouses – Whether breached – Whether property transferred due to undue influence, manipulation, coercion or domination – Whether there was tort of conversion, detinue, trespass and/or unlawful interference – Whether bank subsequent purchaser of property and acquired indefeasible interest under s 340(3) of the National Land Code 1965 – Contracts Act 1950, s 16(2) – National Land Code 1965, ss 5, 340, 340(3)

Otis Elevator Company (M) Sdn Bhd v Desaru Convention Centre Sdn Bhd [2023] 7 AMR 143, HC

Contract – Adjudication decision – Direct payment from principal – Payment sought from employer/principal of projects – Denial of any sum due to main contractor – Whether claim could be resisted based on settlement agreement with main contractor – Whether s 13(b) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("the CIPAA") could be invoked – Whether conditions under s 30 of the CIPAA fulfilled – Arbitration Act 2005, s 41A(1)(a) – Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss 4, 13(b), 30, 30(4) – Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 92 r 4

Public Prosecutor v Li Gui Tao [2023] 7 AMR 174, HC

Criminal procedure – Sentence – Principles of sentencing – Death – Drug trafficking – Exercise of discretion of court after abolition of mandatory death penalty – Factors to be considered – Dangreous Drugs Act 1952, s 39B(1) – Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023

Dangerous drugs – Trafficking – Possession – Whether accused had physical control and knowledge of drugs – Drugs recovered from car borrowed by accused – Whether car in exclusive control of accused – Whether drugs belonged to unknown third party – Whether defence witness credible – Whether accused guilty of trafficking – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s 39B(1) – Evidence Act 1950, ss 17, 24 – Poisons Act 1952, s 30(3)

Saw Woei Chin (Wasi harta pesaka Saw Chin Huat, si mati) v Lim Seang Lee (Beramal di bawah nama dan gaya Tetuan Lim Seang Lee & Associates) [2023] 7 AMR 199, HC

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Mareva injunction – Application for – Claim by lawyer for balance professional fees for services rendered to deceased – Deceased's son applied for taxation of bill of costs – Whether lawyer had good arguable case – Whether deceased had assets within jurisdiction – Whether real risk of dissipation of assets of deceased's estate established – Whether Mareva injunction ought to be granted – Legal Profession Act 1976, s 126 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 29

Professions – Advocates and solicitors – Recovery and taxation of costs – Claim by lawyer for balance professional fees for services rendered to deceased – Deceased's son applied for taxation of bill of costs – Whether lawyer had good arguable case – Whether deceased had assets within jurisdiction – Whether real risk of dissipation of assets of deceased's estate established – Whether Mareva injunction ought to be granted – Legal Profession Act 1976, s 126 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 29