Lee Kuang Gen v Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr M Mahadevan a/l Mahalingam (and 2 Other Appeals) [2024] 1 AMR 365, CA

Contract – Breach – Loan agreement – Claim for return of monies under sale of gold agreements – Whether agreements entered were for sale of gold bullions or disguised transactions of moneylending – Whether loan portrayed as an investment and interests as dividends – Whether transaction illegal under the Moneylenders Act 1951 – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Evidence Act 1950, ss 101, 102 – Moneylenders Act 1951, ss 5(1), 15

Moneylenders – Moneylending transaction – Appeal – Claim for return of monies under sale of gold agreements – Whether agreements entered were for sale of gold bullions or disguised transactions of moneylending – Whether loan portrayed as an investment and interests as dividends – Whether transaction illegal under the Moneylenders Act 1951 – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Evidence Act 1950, ss 101, 102 – Moneylenders Act 1951, ss 5(1), 15

Yap Kim Hin & Anor v Chua Boon Hock & 2 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2024] 1 AMR 389, CA

Civil procedure – Joinder of parties – Appeal against – High Court struck out joinder application with liberty to file afresh subject to direction from Court of Appeal ("CA") – CA previously directed such application to be filed within 14 days from its order – Application objected on technicality by defendants – Whether CA functus officio – Whether CA empowered to extend time-period stated in its previous order – Whether CA could vary its previous order – Whether CA could invoke inherent power in absence of specific application or appeal – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 69(4), (5) – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rules 1A, 93

Courts – Jurisdiction – Court of Appeal – Appeal against – High Court struck out joinder application with liberty to file afresh subject to direction from Court of Appeal ("CA") – CA previously directed such application to be filed within 14 days from its order – Application objected on technicality by defendants – Whether CA functus officio – Whether CA empowered to extend time-period stated in its previous order – Whether CA could vary its previous order – Whether CA could invoke inherent power in absence of specific application or appeal – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 69(4), (5) – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rules 1A, 93

FZA Utama Sdn Bhd v BPH Bina Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 AMR 401, HC

Contract – Construction contract – Breach – Claim for unpaid works – Defence of delay in completion of works raised – Whether payment agreement on back-to-back basis – Whether claim for unpaid works/outstanding sum ought to be allowed – Whether works related to outstanding progress claim completed – Whether payment overpaid – Whether defendant entitled to aggravated damages and/or counterclaim – Whether there was delay in construction works – Whether solely attributable to plaintiff

Liew Kian Vui v Public Prosecutor [2024] 1 AMR 430, HC

Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Appeal against – Unrepresented accused pleaded guilty to amended charge and admitted exhibit containing his previous convictions to be true – Exhibit only described offence as being under s 39C(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA") without stating relevant paragraph thereof – Whether amended charge of the DDA defective – Whether court empowered to exercise revisionary jurisdiction in appeal against sentence – Whether conviction and sentence ought to be quashed – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 156, 316, 325, 422 – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 15(1)(a), 39C(1), (1)(b), (2)

Nik Mohd Suhaimi bin Ahmad Ghazali v Siti Fairuz binti Shamsuri & 8 Ors [2024] 1 AMR 440, HC

Tort – False imprisonment – Malicious prosecution – Damages – Plaintiff arrested, detained, interrogated by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission but later acquitted – Prosecution failed to establish prima facie case under s 468 of the Penal Code – Throughout detention, plaintiff harassed and handcuffed and paraded in front of media – Whether tort of harassment and/or wrongful arrest proved – Whether cause of action tenable without mentioning tort of malicious process in pleadings – Whether plaintiff, suspect of white-collar crime, was vulnerable – Penal Code, s 468

Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square v 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 AMR 454, HC

Building and common property – Common property – Accessory parcels vis-à-vis car parks – Car park business operated on penthouse's accessory carpark parcels – Whether ss 34 and 69 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 breached – Whether car park parcels had been utilised in conjunction with penthouse – Whether car parks should be declared as common properties – Whether new strata plans should be reissued to reflect the same – Whether claim sustainable – Whether judicial review would be appropriate remedy – National Land Code 1965 – Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s 2(a) – Strata Titles Act 1985, ss 9, 14, 34, 34(2), 69

Tan Pit Mooi v Jaia Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors [2024] 1 AMR 478, HC

Company law – Winding-up – Petition – One founder of company holding less than 1% of its issue share capital sought winding up of company due to loss of mutual trust between founders – Whether company set up and continues to be quasi-partnership – Whether petition filed with ulterior motives – Whether mandatory conditions of s 465(1) of the Companies Act 2016 proved/established – Companies Act 2016, ss 346, 465(1)(f), (h)