4 Aug 2025
The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its sentencing discretion after proper consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors and that the 18‑year sentences were not manifestly excessive or disproportionate; therefore the Court declined to interfere and affirmed the sentences.
11 Jul 2025
On the balance of probabilities the Court found that the 1st Plaintiff made a RM3,500,000 friendly loan to both Defendants on 18.8.2020, the 1st Defendant signed the Written Loan Agreement dated 18.8.2020, the cash was handed over at Hong Leong Bank Bukit Damansara, subsequent transfers totalling RM1,764,000 were repayments of that loan, and the 2nd Defendant is jointly liable under the principal loan agreement despite not being a signatory.
11 Jul 2025
On the balance of probabilities the Court found that a joint friendly loan of RM3,500,000 was agreed and disbursed on 18.8.2020 to both Defendants; the Written Loan Agreement bearing the 1st Defendant's signature is authentic; contemporaneous bank records, independent bank employee testimony, photograph metadata, WhatsApp communications and the Defendants' subsequent conduct and remittance descriptions establish that RM1,764,000 were repayments; the 2nd Defendant is liable despite not signing because he requested, received benefit and made repayments under the principal Loan Agreement; accord…
18 Jun 2025
Defendant convicted on his voluntary guilty plea and admitted facts supported by forensic, CCTV and fire department evidence; given the seriousness of deliberate arson, risk to life, presence of intimidation, and defendant's prior convictions, court imposed a substantive custodial sentence of 4 years and a fine of RM5,000 (or 6 months imprisonment on default), with imprisonment to run from date of conviction and to run separately from the existing sentence in case JA-62-88-06/2025.
6 Mar 2025
The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellants jointly had possession, control and knowledge of the dangerous drugs based on DNA evidence on personal items, the quantity and exposed state of drugs and processing equipment, and occupancy/access evidence; the omission of s.34 from the charge was not fatal; failure to call peripheral witnesses did not attract an adverse inference; and alleged counsel incompetence did not cause prejudice — thus convictions and sentences were safe and must be upheld.
1 Dec 2024
On a maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence the court found no credible proof that any accused made or caused the making of the false parts of P28[1]/P28[2] at the charged date/time/place or had the requisite intent to defraud; evidence against T2 and T3 was insufficient to establish nexus or knowledge for s.34 liability; therefore prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and the accused were acquitted and discharged under s.173(f)(ii) CPC.
19 Nov 2024
Both interlocutory striking out applications were dismissed: the Tenancy Agreement was held valid on its face but its definitive effect on waiver was left unresolved pending trial because a triable issue remains whether the trespass extends beyond the leased/acquired lands; Plaintiffs retain locus standi to sue for trespass over unacquired parts; the pleadings against the 1st Defendant are not so hopeless as to be struck out because sufficient factual material alleges its role as project owner and control making joint liability arguable.
14 Oct 2022
Application dismissed because the judgment debtor failed to comply with the statutory requirements to dispute the sum in the bankruptcy notice within the prescribed time and because the underlying sale agreement and authorities establish that joint purchasers are jointly liable for the whole judgment sum, so the amount in the BN was not excessive.
11 Apr 2021
The Sessions Court's sentence was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of a planned gang-robbery involving threats, pepper spray and property damage; all participants bear equal culpability under gang-robbery provisions; the mandatory mask regime during COVID-19 used to conceal identity is a substantial aggravating factor that outweighs the mitigating value of early guilty pleas and personal hardship; therefore the appellate court increased each respondent's custodial term to 12 years from date of arrest, retained one stroke of cane and ordered restitution of RM18,000 to the victim.
29 Sept 2020
The Federal Court held that by operation of section 46 EPF Act 1991 (read with section 44 Contracts Act 1950 principles) the liability of the directors was joint and several such that the creditor was entitled to proceed against any one or more of the joint promisors for the entirety of the judgment sum; the courts below erred in treating 'joint' as halving liability and in holding the bankruptcy notice invalid; appeal allowed and matter remitted to High Court.