On the night of 9 January 2019, while walking along the beach in front of Mali-Mali Beach Resort, a coconut tree suddenly fell and struck the respondent, causing severe injuries that resulted in paraplegia. Another victim was killed in the same incident.
The appellant commenced an action against the respondent, the local authority for Langkawi established under the Local Government Act 1976 (‘the LGA 1976’), alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty under s 101 of the LGA.
This case highlights the effect of an unless order for discovery and whether a court is bound to enter a default judgment containing declaratory relief purely due to non-compliance with such an order. The Federal Court was required to determine whether declaratory relief may be granted without consideration of the merits or supporting evidence, and whether an unless order can operate in the same manner as a summary judgment or judgment in default, particularly in proceedings involving the government.
This case concerned a dispute between the Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (“KPHN”) and Tenaga Nasional Berhad (“TNB”) over TNB’s entitlement to claim Reinvestment Allowance (“RA”) under Schedule 7A of the Income Tax Act 1967. TNB, whose principal business involves the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, had claimed RA under Schedule 7A from the year of assessment (YA) 2003 to YA 2017 in respect of capital expenditure incurred on its electricity-related assets. Following an internal audit, KPHN rejected TNB’s RA claim for YA 2018 and issued a notice of additional assessment amounting to approximately RM1.81 billion. KPHN took the position that electricity generation does not constitute “manufacturing” within the meaning of Schedule 7A and that TNB, as a utility company, should instead fall under Schedule 7B, which provides investment allowance incentives for the service sector.
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.
