Chong Chee Piao & 4 Ors v Koh Wah Leong (sebagai Pengerusi Pertubuhan Penganut-Penganut Ting Leong Keng Lee Hu Tong Chu, Pantai Remis, Manjong, Perak) [2023] 3 AMR 845, CA

Land law – Ownership – Possession of land – Appeal – High Court allowed claim of occupier of land premised on purported constructive trust created for construction of temple – Survey plan of land adduced as fresh evidence post trial at appeal stage – Whether constructive trust created over entire land – Whether counterclaim time-barred – Whether High Court's order tenable – Whether fresh evidence adduced at appeal stage admissible – Limitation Act 1953, s 9(1) – National Land Code 1965

Tort – Trespass – Appeal – High Court allowed claim of occupier of land premised on purported constructive trust created for construction of temple – Survey plan of land adduced as fresh evidence post trial at appeal stage – Whether constructive trust created over entire land – Whether counterclaim time-barred – Whether High Court's order tenable – Whether fresh evidence adduced at appeal stage admissible – Limitation Act 1953, s 9(1) – National Land Code 1965

Alam Langkawi Sdn Bhd v Yew Sow Chee (didakwa dalam kapasiti sendiri dan juga sebagai eksekutor wasiat Soon Eng Kooi (No. K/P: 600316-07-5623), si mati) [2023] 3 AMR 870, HC

Civil procedure – Contempt of court – Breach or non-compliance with order of court – Company's director failed to produce financial documents despite direction from court – Whether director served with order of court and knew contents thereof – Whether prima facie case for committal proceedings made out – Rules of Court 2012, Order 45 rr 5, 7

Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v Menteri Kewangan Malaysia [2023] 3 AMR 877, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Direction sought against minister's non-response to letter seeking exercise of his powers under ss 135 and 127(3A) of the Income Tax Act 1967 ("the Act") against additional assessment notices – Whether leave for judicial review ought to be granted – Whether minister could be compelled by order of court to exercise his power under the Act – Whether Director General of Inland Revenue misapplied law in making additional assessments – Income Tax Act 1967, ss 99, 127(3A), 135 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 53

Christina Carolina Gerarda Johanna Verstappen v Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & 3 Ors [2023] 3 AMR 895, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Cause of death declared as suicide by police – Pursuant to High Court's order, cause of death was re-investigated and re-classified as murder – No decision or conclusion in investigation for more than three years – Whether defendants breached statutory duties and/or negligent in execution thereof – Whether there was cause of action against defendants – Whether triable issues existed – Police Act 1967 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (d)

Public Prosecutor v Mohd Fadil bin Zainan [2023] 3 AMR 904, HC

Criminal law – Offences affecting the human body – Murder – Accused physically assaulted wife who did not die immediately but two days after assault – Cause of death inconclusive – Whether accused allegedly had mental health issues – Whether prima facie case made out for offence of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Criminal Procedure Code, s 180(3), (4) – Penal Code, ss 302, 304(b)

Ultimate Reserves Sdn Bhd v BHO Sdn Bhd [2023] 3 AMR 929, HC

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of defence – Appeal – Sessions Court dismissed application to strike out defence – Appeal opposed on grounds of non-maintainability under s 28(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; suit lacked essential particulars; and correspondence marked "without prejudice" relied upon by appellant was inadmissible – Whether defence ought to be struck out – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 28, 28(1) – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 12

Yong Wei Hau v Florence Chin Su Ching [2023] 3 AMR 939, HC

Family law – Divorce – Consent order – Application to rescind and vary terms of consent order – Grounds of mistake of fact, misrepresentation and material change in circumstances post issuance of consent order raised – Whether mistake of fact, misrepresentation and/or material change of circumstances proved to justify rescission and/or variation of consent order – Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, rule 63