Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Government of Malaysia (and Another Appeal) [2023] 7 AMR 865, FC

Civil procedure – Summary judgment – Statutory claim for recovery of tax – Applications filed by Inland Revenue Board ("IRB") under s 106 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the ITA") allowed by High Court and affirmed by Court of Appeal – Whether s 106(3) of the ITA constitutional or ultra vires Article 121 of the Federal Constitution ("the FC") as it usurped judicial power of Federal Court – Whether ss 103 and 106(3) of the ITA prevented Federal Court from considering existence of triable issues and/or reason warranting a trial – Whether Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 applicable in tax proceedings under ss 103 and 106 of the ITA – Whether in instances of manifest and obvious errors in tax-assessment calculations, court entitled to consider defence to dismiss or set aside summary judgment application – Whether judicial power vested in High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court may be suspended and/or abrogated in a tax recovery suit – Whether defences of bad faith, mala fides, oppression, unconscionability and unreasonableness or abuse of process fell within the purview of s 106(3) of the ITA – Federal Constitution, Articles 4(1), 5, 5(1), 8, 8(1), 13, 121 – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 99, 99(1), 103, 103B, 104, 105, 106, 106(1), (3), 107, 134(2)(b), 142(1), Part V, Chapter 2 of Part VI, Part VII, Schedule 5 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14, Order 14 rr 1, 3

Constitutional law – Legislation – Constitutionality of – Applications for summary judgment filed by Inland Revenue Board ("IRB") under s 106 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the ITA") – Whether s 106(3) of the ITA constitutional or ultra vires Article 121 of the Federal Constitution ("the FC") as it usurped judicial power of Federal Court – Whether Article 121 of the FC relevant in determination of civil recovery proceedings in tax matters – Whether s 106(3) of the ITA contravened Article 5(1) and/or Article 8 of the FC – Whether ss 103 and 106(3) of the ITA prevented Federal Court from considering existence of triable issues and/or reason warranting a trial – Whether judicial power vested in High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court may be suspended and/or abrogated in a tax recovery suit under s 106(1) of the ITA based on s 106(3) or s 99 of the ITA – Federal Constitution, Articles 4(1), 5, 5(1), 8, 8(1), 13, 121 – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 99, 99(1), 103, 103B, 104, 105, 106, 106(1), (3), 107, 134(2)(b), 142(1), Part V, Chapter 2 of Part VI, Part VII, Schedule 5 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14, Order 14 rr 1, 3

Revenue law – Collection and recovery of tax – Recovery by suit – Applications for summary judgment filed by Inland Revenue Board ("IRB") under s 106 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the ITA") – Whether s 106(3) of the ITA constitutional or ultra vires Article 121 of the Federal Constitution ("the FC") as it usurped judicial power of Federal Court – Whether ss 103 and 106(3) of the ITA prevented Federal Court from considering existence of triable issues and/or reason warranting a trial – Whether Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 applicable in tax proceedings under ss 103 and 106 of the ITA – Whether in instances of manifest and obvious errors in tax assessment calculations, court entitled to consider defence to dismiss or set aside summary judgment application – Whether judicial power vested in High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court may be suspended and/or abrogated in a tax recovery suit – Whether defences of bad faith, mala fides, oppression, unconscionability and unreasonableness or abuse of process fell within purview of s 106(3) of the ITA – Federal Constitution, Articles 4(1), 5, 5(1), 8, 8(1), 13, 121, Income Tax Act 1967, ss 99, 99(1), 103, 103B 104, 105, 106, 106(1), (3), 107, 134(2)(b), 142(1), Part V, Part VI, Chapter 2 of Part VI, Part VII, Schedule 5 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14, Order 14 rr 1, 3

Delta Haulage Transport (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Shanmugam Ramasamy & Anor [2023] 7 AMR 932, CA

Civil procedure – Contribution or indemnity – Claim for – Applicability of res judicata – Whether issues of liability, indemnity and contribution had been determined by High Court and Court of Appeal – Whether re-litigation of issues would be unjust and oppressive – Whether s 10 of the Civil Law Act 1956 could be invoked – Civil Law Act 1956, s 10

Le Apple Boutique Hotel Sdn Bhd v Keen Solution Sdn Bhd [2023] 7 AMR 947, CA

Company law – Winding-up – Petition – Winding-up petition allowed on grounds of justice and equitability – Whether petition mala fide – Whether corporate veil ought to be lifted – Whether deliberation upon issues arising in another sub-judice matter justified – Whether oral contract, as alleged, existed – Whether appellate intervention warranted

Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad (formerly known as Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad) v Starfusion Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors [2023] 7 AMR 963, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Writ and statement of claim – Recovery of outstanding sum due under facility agreement to finance company's working capital and bank guarantee – Whether claim time-barred, unsustainable and abuse of process of court – Whether amount claimed was erroneous, excessive, exorbitant and unjust enrichment – Whether triable issues raised – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14, Order 18 r 19(1)(b), (d)

Civil procedure – Summary judgment – Application for – Recovery of outstanding sum due under facility agreement to finance company's working capital and bank guarantee – Whether claim time-barred, unsustainable and abuse of process of court – Whether amount claimed was erroneous, excessive, exorbitant and unjust enrichment – Whether triable issues raised – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14, Order 18 r 19(1)(b), (d)