12 Nov 2025
The Pardons Board has the exclusive authority to reconsider and alter the commencement date of imprisonment and such decisions are not justiciable; affected persons must pursue fresh petitions under Regulations 54 and 113 of the Prison Regulations 2000 rather than seek judicial alteration.
24 Oct 2025
The High Court allowed the employer's appeal, holding KPTR erred in treating the absence of an internal inquiry as a fatal defect; such failure is an irregularity not automatically invalidating dismissal and KPTR also erred by failing to investigate the employer's allegations — the misconduct found was sufficient to justify dismissal on the facts, therefore KPTR's award was set aside and the appeal allowed with costs.
2 Oct 2024
The court held that payment of the purchase price was conditional upon the Defendant fulfilling its seller obligations and appointing a stakeholder (condition precedent); the Defendant terminated the Agreement before performing those obligations and therefore breached the contract; clause 7.7 prevented treating non-payment as an event of default pending the Effective Date; accordingly the termination was invalid, the contract was declared void and the Defendant was ordered to restore monies received under section 66 Contracts Act 1950.
28 Aug 2024
The Dealership Agreement imposed a contractual obligation on the 1st Defendant to collect Advertising Income from the 2nd Defendant and pay RM75,000 monthly to the Plaintiff; each missed monthly payment was a separate breach and cause of action. Because the Writ was filed on 18 April 2022, payments due before 18 April 2016 (seven monthly installments from 19 Sep 2015 to 19 Mar 2016) are statute-barred. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover RM75,000 x 53 months = RM3,975,000 from the Defendants, the 1st Defendant being jointly and severally liable with the 2nd Defendant.
2 Jul 2024
The appeal was dismissed because the trial court correctly found the termination notice defective for not complying with the contractual service clause, the written agreement constituted a sale of the business (with licence to use the name) not a joint venture, the plaintiffs themselves breached contractual obligations and failed to prove any loss; therefore their termination and damages claim failed.
25 Mar 2024
The defendant failed to procure the required written approvals of both the board of directors and members of Vettons Angels as required by clause 3A.01; the putative Resolution was unreliable and no member approval was shown; therefore the SPAs remained conditional and inoperative; plaintiffs validly rescinded the SPAs by solicitor letters and are entitled to repayment of all monies paid; the defendant's counterclaim fails as obligations under the SPAs never arose.
22 Dec 2023
The court held that the agreed size ratio (1:4:4:1), colour, quantity per container and delivery schedule were fundamental terms of the contract; the First Defendant's unilateral alteration of size ratio and mixing of colours adversely affected performance and constituted a repudiatory breach; Clause 7(c) could not be relied on because the adjustments affected performance and Clause 7(d) (force majeure) was not engaged; the Plaintiff lawfully terminated and is entitled to repayment of the USD182,400 deposit but not to the claimed special damages; costs RM30,000 awarded to Plaintiff.
28 Jul 2023
No binding offer existed because the 2nd Defendant never issued a formal letter of offer nor obtained the necessary acceptance and ancillary documents; PSC's approval to release the officer did not equate to appointment. Consequently the declarations and reliefs sought fail and the claim is dismissed.
22 Jun 2023
On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant First failed because the hire‑purchase agreement displaced any contractual claim against the dealer/manufacturer; the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Second failed because the evidence did not establish that dealer‑installed parts (battery) caused the fire (insufficient, non‑expert/sepinaned witness and time gap) and the pleaded losses were not shown to have been suffered by the Plaintiff. Claims dismissed with costs on scale.
1 Feb 2023
The counterclaim was struck out because on its face it disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the Second Agreement replaced the First Agreement, defendant produced no evidence of loss, defendant accepted the completed and certified lifts thereby waiving rights to treat time as of the essence, and allowing the counterclaim would result in unjust enrichment and be an abuse of process; summary dismissal under Order 18 r.19 was therefore appropriate.