Gan Boon Aun v Public Prosecutor [2024] 1 AMR 729, CA

Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Appeal against – One day imprisonment sentence enhanced by High Court to 24 months in absence of convict – Instruction to appeal came from convict's daughter – Whether appeal on instructions of convict's family member incompetent – Whether service of notice of appeal and hearing in consonance with s 314(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code – Whether enhancement of imprisonment ought to be set aside – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Criminal Procedure Code, s 314(1), (2) – Securities Industry Act 1983, s 122(1), 122B(a)(bb) – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rule 105

Air Plus Travel And Tours Pte Ltd v S5 Systems Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 AMR 743, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Endorsement on writ and subsequent statement of claim ("SOC") disconnected – Whether SOC lacked clarity of actual cause of actions – Whether SOC violated the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether violations mere technicalities – Whether ignoring defect in SOC abuse of court's process and caused injustice – Whether SOC ought to be struck out – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 rr 7, 15(2)

Institut Akauntan Malaysia v Kok Kon Sang (No. 2) [2024] 1 AMR 749, HC

Civil procedure – Originating summons – Application sought for declaration that defendant a vexatious litigant – Defendant filed nine frivolous interlocutory applications without filing any reply despite court directions – Multiple suits and applications filed previously were dismissed by all courts at different stages for being vexatious and scandalous – Whether defendant a vexatious litigant – Whether defendant abused court's process – Whether defendant ought to be barred from initiating any further legal proceeding in any courts in Malaysia, except with leave of High Court – Rules of Court 2012, Order 41 r 6, Order 52 r 3

Intergateway Freight Sdn Bhd v Sam Kar Chyi [2024] 1 AMR 762, HC

Civil procedure – Pleadings – Statement of claim – Sum claimed from former employee for failure to raise invoices to company's customer – Whether customer's outstanding dues could be claimed from employee – Whether employee being stranger to contract between company and customer could be held liable for breach of such contract – Whether claim premature and oppressive – Whether employee liable for company's purported losses

Kining Exeton Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Kastam [2024] 1 AMR 787, HC

Revenue law – Collection and recovery of tax – Goods and services tax ("GST") – Appeal against – Custom's Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") affirmed assessment of GST – Taxpayer claimed exemption from GST based on certificate of goods and services tax relief ("COGSTR") obtained from its employer, Majlis Perbandaran Kuantan ("MPK") – Whether MPK local authority or government – Whether MPK empowered to issue COGSTR – Whether GST levied valid – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Evidence Act 1950, s 94 – Goods and Services Tax Act 2014, ss 9, 14, 56, 56(4), 64 – Government Contracts Act 1949 – Local Government Act 1976, s 2

Lakefront Residence Sdn Bhd v Tetuan Lui & Bhullar & 3 Ors [2024] 1 AMR 799, HC

Civil procedure – Amendments – Statement of claim – Proposed amendment intended to add new cause of action of conspiracy to injure claimant – Whether cause of action established and/or tenable – Whether proposed amendment would drastically change character of suit – Legal Profession Act 1976 – Personal Data Protection Act 2010

Public Prosecutor v Mohd Sabri bin Mat Arifin & Anor [2024] 1 AMR 806, HC

Dangerous drugs – Trafficking – Common intention – Methamphetamine – Drug found in bag hidden behind television of premises – Whether drug found was dangerous drug under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether accused were in possession of drug and trafficking it – Whether common intention under s 34 of the Penal Code established – Whether prosecution established prima facie case against accused – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 2, 37(d), (da), 39B(1)(a), First Schedule – Penal Code, s 34

Ramesh Shankar a/l Raja Ram v Tong-Carriage (M) Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 AMR 818, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Industrial Court dismissed employee's claim for wrongful dismissal – Employee failed to meet sales targets and refused to sign letter of confirmation of employment ("LC") – Claim that employer unilaterally changed terms and conditions of LC – Whether application for judicial review maintainable – Whether employee should have appealed against Industrial Court's award to High Court according to s 33C of the Industrial Relations Act 1976 – Whether employee on probation or permanent – Whether dismissal justified – Industrial Relations Act 1976, s 33C – Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2021, s 35(1)