Majlis Peguam Malaysia v Syed Ahmad Imdadz bin Said Abas & Anor [2024] 1 AMR 1, FC

Professions – Advocates and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Appeal – Disciplinary Board ("DB") imposed lighter penalty than Disciplinary Committee's recommendation – Whether advocate needed opportunity to be heard under s 103D(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("the LPA") when DB had already reduced penalty or punishment – Whether term "adverse" under s 103D(4) of the LPA should be read in context of "greater or lesser" under s 103D(2) of the LPA – Legal Profession Act 1976, s 103D, 103D(2), (4)

Faustina Anne Sta Maria v Mary Patricia De Cruz [2024] 1 AMR 15, CA

Probate and administration – Estate – Intestate estate – Appeal – Estranged wife and mother only surviving heirs of deceased – Mother died subsequently – Deceased's sister's application under s 8 of the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 ("the Act") for distribution of deceased's estate, opposed by wife – Wife sought order to be declared sole heir to deceased's estate – Whether deceased's mother's interest in deceased's estate ceased/lapsed and reverted to wife upon her death – Whether deceased's sister possessed locus standi to file application – Whether appellate intervention warranted to reverse High Court's judgment dismissing wife's claim – Distribution Act 1958, s 6(1) – Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955, ss 3(2), 8

Manjit Kaur a/p Pertap Singh (suing through her son and litigation representative, Amrit Pal Singh s/o Jaginder Singh) v Dr Nagasparan Natchappan [2024] 1 AMR 29, CA

Tort – Negligence – Medical negligence – Claim for damages and liability – Appeal against – High Court dismissed claim against dentist for negligence – Patient suffered hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, a type of brain damage after resuscitation – Whether dentist was negligent – Whether dentist's breach of three duties was material contributing cause of patient's medical condition – Whether failure to cross-examine a part of pleaded case amounted to abandonment of such claim – Whether dentist failed to comply with statutory duties under Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 and Private Healthcare Facilities and Services (Private Medical Clinics or Private Dental Clinics) Regulations 2006 – Whether patient entitled to damages – Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998, ss 38, 107 – Private Healthcare Facilities and Services (Private Medical Clinics or Private Dental Clinics) Regulations 2006, reg 75(3), (8), (9), Fifth Schedule, paragraph 2(a), (b), (d)

Mejar Huzairein bin Hj Yacob & 2 Ors v Staf Sarjan Nur Aizam bin Hamali [2024] 1 AMR 70, CA

Armed forces – Service offences and punishments – Close arrest – Validity of – Accused charged under s 51 and s 87 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 and placed under close arrest throughout period of adjournment of trial – Military court found accused not guilty as charged and acquitted and discharged accused – Accused's claim for damages for unlawful detention allowed by High Court – Whether accused correctly named party to action – Whether non-joinder of concerned officer responsible for alleged wrongdoings fatal to case – Whether detention lawful – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Armed Forces Act 1972, ss 51, 87, 96(3) – Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, Order 16(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, s 388(5) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 4 r 1(2)

Tort – Unlawful detention – Damages – Accused charged under s 51 and s 87 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 and placed under close arrest throughout period of adjournment of trial – Military court found accused not guilty as charged and acquitted and discharged accused – Accused's claim for damages for unlawful detention allowed by High Court – Whether accused correctly named party to action – Whether non-joinder of concerned officer responsible for alleged wrongdoings fatal to case – Whether detention lawful – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Armed Forces Act 1972, ss 51, 87, 96(3) – Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, Order 16(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, s 388(5) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 4 r 1(2)

Chu Kok Mou v Rosilawati binti Senan & 13 Ors [2024] 1 AMR 80, HC

Land law – Ownership – Beneficial ownership – Application for declaration of proprietary and possessory rights over land – Memorandum of transfer executed with original landowner – Defendants claimed rights over land on account of their land applications pending with authorities – Whether transfer of land to plaintiff void in absence of sale and purchase agreement – Whether transfer of land tainted with fraud and forgery – Whether defendants had valid legitimate expectation for land to be transferred to them – Whether plaintiff had better title over land – Whether plaintiff's case proven on balance of probabilities – Whether defendants' counterclaim established according to prescribed standard of proof – Land Ordinance (Cap 68) (Sabah), ss 9, 13 – Federal Constitution

N Vasantha Rajan a/l Nagarajan (wasi kepada harta pusaka N Arumugam Pillai @ NTS Arumugam Pillai son of Nagappa Pillai) v Yeoh Soon Peng & Anor [2024] 1 AMR 95, HC

Civil procedure – Stay – Application for – Executor sought for stay of trial pending determination of appeal against dismissal of application under Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012 to pose certain questions to court – No objection from opposing party – Whether stay ought to be granted in light of executor's said appeal – Whether there were special circumstances that warrant grant of stay – Rules of Court 2012, Order 33

Ong Yew Long & 22 Ors v Mohd Faizar bin Azizan & 9 Ors [2024] 1 AMR 106, HC

Civil procedure – Recovery of money – Fraud – Application for – Alleged fraudulent misrepresentation of illegal investment scheme – Whether investors were defrauded – Whether investment scheme was legal – Whether master introducer broker personally liable or had raised any tenable defence – Whether defendants liable – Whether investors entitled to exemplary damages

Volkswagen Passenger Cars Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna & Anor [2024] 1 AMR 119, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Tribunal for Consumer Claims ("tribunal") allowed car buyer's claim without company's presence – Cause papers of tribunal served at old address of company – Company was not aware of hearing date – Tribunal refused to set aside award – Whether application for judicial review time-barred – Whether tribunal's decision ought to be set aside for being procedurally improper and irrational – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53 r 3(6)