[2018] MYCA 227Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Sivil No. C-01[A]-53-02/2017  Date of Judgment: 27 July 2018

Administrative law – Judicial review against the decision of the Criminal Prevention Board – Whether there was non-compliance of procedures under section 9 and section 6 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 – Whether there was a contravention of the provisions of section 7 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 – Whether non-compliance of procedures raised in the affidavit of the applicant

[2018] MYCA 292Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Civil Appeal No. B-02(NCC)(A)-2585-12/2017  Date of Judgment: 07 September 2018

Corporate insolvency – Winding Up – Whether the debt disputed – Whether the respondent a creditor within the meaning of section 218(2) of the Companies Act – Whether the respondent entitled to present the winding up petition

[2018] MYCA 283Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Civil Appeal No. W-02(NCVC)(W)-1884-10/2016  Date of Judgment: 21 August 2018

Consumer law – Meaning and intent of the proviso to regulation 11(2) of the Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 – Whether a licensee may recover from a consumer any charges due to the licensee in respect of the supply of electricity under regulation 3(1) of the Licensee Supply Regulations 1990

[2018] MYCA 286Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Sivil No. P-01(A)-421-10/2016  Date of Judgment: 27 August 2018

Administrative law – Judicial review – Refusal by the Attorney General to give consent under section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 to initiate a proceeding for appointing an additional trustee or a new trustee in a public charitable trust – Application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012

[2018] MYCA 287Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Civil Appeal No. W-01(IM)-65-02/2017  Date of Judgment: 03 September 2018

Administrative law – Judicial review – Limitation – Whether the application for judicial review filed after the expiry of the time prescribed by Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether an extension of time should be granted

[2018] MYCA 288Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah No. W-05(LB)-159-04/2016   Date of Judgment: 04 September 2018

Criminal law – Trafficking in dangerous drugs – Acquittal – Appeal by the prosecution

Criminal procedure – Whether the trial judge failed to consider the whole of the prosecution's evidence – Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent has succeeded in raising reasonable doubts over the prosecution case

[2018] MYCA 290Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Civil Appeal No. W-02(IM)(NCC)-1505-07/2018  Date of Judgment: 07 September 2018

Litigation & court procedure – Notice of motion seeking to stay a civil suit pending the disposal of a winding-up petition which was subsequently filed after the civil suit under section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the court

Corporate law – Winding up – Whether the stay application (a contributory petition to wind up the company on just and equitable ground as per section 465(1)(c), (f) and (k) of the Companies Act 2016 filed a week before the hearing of the civil suit) lacks bona fide and an abuse of process of the court – Jurisprudence related to section 470 of the Companies Act 2016

[2018] MYCA 220Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Sivil Nos. W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2513-12/2017 & W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2514-12/2017  Date of Judgment: 04 July 2018

Litigation & court procedure – Amendment to Statement of Claim – Introduction of further documents for the purposes of trial – Whether the respondents have given a cogent and reasonable explanation for their delay – Whether the proposed new claim lacks particulars – Whether there are real prospects of success in proving the claim – Whether the proposed amendment to add a new claim for special damages has the effect of changing the character of the respondents’ suit into another of inconsistent character – Whether the prejudice caused to the appellant by the proposed new claim for special damages, if allowed by the court, could be compensated by costs – Whether the amendment application is a tactical manoeuvre to delay the trial and/or to intimidate and harass the appellant

[2018] MYCA 218Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Sivil Nos. W-01-(IM)(NCVC)-399-11/2017 & W-02-(IM)(NCVC)-2293-11/2017  Date of Judgment: 10 July 2018

Tort – Tort of misfeasance in public office – Meaning of “public officer” for the purposes of the law of the tort of misfeasance in Malaysia – Whether Prime Minister a “public officer”


Search Judgments

Notice: The Promoters of Malaysian Judgments acknowledge the permission granted by the relevant official/ original source for the reproduction of the above/ attached materials. You shall not reproduce the above/ attached materials in whole or in part without the prior written consent of the Promoters and/or the original/ official source. Neither the Promoters nor the official/ original source will be liable for any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damage caused directly, indirectly or incidentally to errors in or omissions from the above/ attached materials. The Promoters and the official/ original source also disclaim and exclude all liabilities in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of the above/attached materials. The access to, and the use of, Malaysian Judgments and contents herein are subject to the Terms of Use.