The appellant, alleged that the respondents were negligent in several respects, including failing to properly diagnose foetal distress, failing to ensure the availability of a paediatrician or neonatal specialist, failing to have proper systems in place for emergency referral, and delaying the transfer of the newborn to a hospital with neonatal intensive care facilities. It was contended that these failures collectively resulted in hypoxic injury, leading to cerebral palsy.
Written by Poovarasan Nalechami Introduction This case focuses on the scope of participation by creditors in judicial management proceedings under the Companies Act 2016 and the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 (‘the CRM Rules’).…
The respondent, Ting Siu Hua, was appointed as a promoter or junket by the Huang Group, which operated arrangements with the Naga Casino in Cambodia. As a junket promoter, the respondent was entitled to commissions for bringing in affluent players, primarily from Sarawak to gamble at the casino. In early 2015, the respondent organised a two-day gambling trip for the appellant, Dato’ Ting Ching Lee, and four other individuals. At the appellant’s request, Huang Group extended credit facilities amounting to USD1.5 million and a rolling rebate of USD193,800 to enable gambling at the casino.
Following the trip, the appellant alleged that the respondent wrote and published or caused to be written or published defamatory statements in local Chinese newspapers and on social media alleging that the appellant and two other individuals owed gambling debts to the Huang Group. This led to a defamation suit filed by the appellant and the others against the respondent. The respondent counterclaimed, seeking recovery of the credit facilities extended for gambling form the appellant.
An exhausted cabin crew member vents on Instagram. A screenshot travels. A dismissal letter follows. Two years later, the Industrial Court delivers a reminder: private frustration is not gross misconduct that warrants dismissal.
The case arose when Sri Sanjeevan, after being detained under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (‘the POCA’), obtained a writ of habeas corpus on grounds that his detention contravened mandatory procedural requirements. The High Court found in his favour, and he sought damages for false imprisonment, arguing that the habeas corpus order proved the wrongful nature of his detention. However, his victory in the High Court was overturned by the Court of Appeal, leading to the present Federal Court appeal.
In Ross v Garvey, the co-owner brothers Matthew and Kyle Garvey listed their property for sale and negotiated directly with Daniel Ross, a realtor and developer. After rejecting Ross’s initial offer, Kyle emailed a ‘counter-offer’ from the brothers’ shared email account, attaching an amended version of the standard-form contract but without any signatures. Ross immediately accepted by email, signed the documents electronically, and Kyle responded with a thumbs-up emoji in a text message. The next day, Matthew intervened, stating he had neither reviewed nor approved the documents and that nothing had been signed. The Garveys later sold the property to third parties. Ross brought a legal action against the Garveys, arguing that the emailed counteroffer and the thumbs-up emoji via text message formed a binding contract.
The respondent was a registered manufacturer under the Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment Of Tax) Order 2018. However, as a franchise holder of locally assembled manufacturer for motorcycles (both below and above 250cc), the respondent was not eligible to claim for the exemption under PU(A) 210.
A case study on the Federal Court case of Lim Swee Choo & Chiam Eng Huat @ Chiam Eng Hong v Ong Koh Hou and another appeal.
This case serves as a critical reminder that for sports bodies, strict adherence to their constitution and bylaws is paramount. It mandates the exhaustion of internal remedies like mediation before court intervention and underscores the fundamental necessity of procedural fairness in all decisions.
原告（一位股东兼董事）指控同样作为第三被告 Super Resources & Trading Sdn Bhd 股东兼董事的第一及第二被告，存在压迫行为且无视原告的利益。
