3Q Resources (M) Sdn Bhd v Solidwin Property Sdn Bhd (and 2 Other Appeals) [2023] 7 AMR 637, CA

Civil procedure – Striking out – Statement of claim – Appeal against – Company's lands sold to first purchaser through public auction – Lands sold to subsequent purchaser – Company registered private caveat on land and filed suit to set aside transfer of lands – High Court allowed subsequent purchaser's application for removal of company's caveat and striking out of company's suit – Whether company had caveatable interest on lands – Whether company's suit raised triable issues – Whether doctrine of res judicata applicable – Whether suit disclosed reasonable cause of action – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (d) – National Land Code 1965, s 340(4)

Gerbang Alaf Restaurants Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Golden Arches Restaurants Sdn Bhd) v Chai Su Lin & Anor [2023] 7 AMR 654, CA

Contract – Agreement – Franchise agreement – Termination under s 31(3)(d) of the Franchise Act 1998 for alleged breach of agreement – Whether termination valid – Whether notice of termination specified terms of agreement breached – Whether defaulting event communicated between parties – Whether there were repeated breaches of agreement – Whether breaches extinguished once remedied, precluding applicability of s 31(3)(d) of the Franchise Act 1998 – Franchise Act 1998, s 31(3)(d)

Contract – Breach – Termination of franchise agreement under s 31(3)(d) of the Franchise Act 1998 for alleged breach of agreement – Whether termination valid – Whether notice of termination specified terms of agreement breached – Whether defaulting event communicated between parties – Whether there were repeated breaches of agreement – Whether breaches extinguished once remedied, precluding applicability of s 31(3)(d) of the Franchise Act 1998 – Franchise Act 1998, s 31(3)(d)

Chan Weng Fui v Pan Malaysia Capital Berhad & 16 Ors [2023] 7 AMR 669, HC

Civil procedure – Evidence – Witness statement – Application to cross-examine deponent of affidavit– Whether alleged conflict in facts necessitated oral evidence of deponent – Whether affidavit and/or documents on record sufficient to adjudicate central issue of dispute – Rules of Court 2012, Order 28 r 4, Order 38 r 2

Mega Usaha Bina Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah, Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Daerah Kuantan [2023] 7 AMR 684, HC

Civil procedure – Originating summons – Application for – Declarations that quit rents imposed on lands invalid and increase in rate pursuant to rule 22 of the Pahang Land (Amendment) (No. 4) Rules 2019 inapplicable – Whether application was a challenge to public body's decision– Whether wrong mode of commencement – Whether should be by way of judicial review – Whether application premature – Pahang Land (Amendment) (No. 4) Rules 2019, rule 22

MEL v LMK & Anor [2023] 7 AMR 693, HC

Trusts and trustees – Presumption of trust – Resulting trust – Property purchased by husband and registered under his sister's name – Wife expended money towards redemption sum and conveyancing fees of property – Allegation by husband that wife transferred to herself monies from his account, watches and car when husband was under influence of psychotic drugs and suffering from mental health deterioration – Whether property meant as matrimonial property of husband and wife – Whether constructive or resulting trust existed in favour of wife – Whether doctrine of presumption of trust appliable – Whether husband in right to mind to give knowing consent to transfers – Whether husband satisfied evidential burden to rebut presumption of advancement – Evidence Act 1950, ss 114(g), 134

Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Shafiq Al-Fateh bin Ahmad Ridzuan (and Another Criminal Trial) [2023] 7 AMR 720, HC

Dangerous drugs – Trafficking – Possession – Offences of trafficking and possession of cannabis – Drugs found in house where accused was arrested – Whether prima facie case against accused for drug trafficking established – Whether accused had exclusive access to house – Whether elements of possession, trafficking and knowledge of drugs by accused proved – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 6B(1)(c), (3), 39A(2), 39B(1)(a), (2) – Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g)

Public Prosecutor v Umapathi a/l Ganesan [2023] 7 AMR 742, HC

Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Dangerous drugs offence – Public Prosecutor sought death sentence for accused convicted under s 39B(1) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 on ground of gravity of offence – Whether death sentence ought to be awarded – Whether definition of life imprisonment under s 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1953 applicable – Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 – Criminal Justice Act 1953, s 3 – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 12(2), (3), 37(da), 39(2A), 39B(1), (2) – Poisons Act 1952, s 30(3), (5)

Dangerous drugs – Trafficking – Possession – Public Prosecutor sought death sentence for accused convicted under s 39B(1) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 on ground of gravity of offence – Whether death sentence ought to be awarded – Whether definition of life imprisonment under s 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1953 applicable – Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 – Criminal Justice Act 1953, s 3 – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss 12(2), (3), 37(da), 39(2A), 39B(1), (2) – Poisons Act 1952, s 30(3), (5)