CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— SENTENCING— HARSH PENALTIES IN VIOLENT CRIMES: A LEGAL EXAMINATION OF SENTENCING STANDARDS
This update delves into a case where two individuals received substantial sentences for their roles in a violent home invasion, highlighting the judicial rationale behind consecutive sentences and the balance between public safety and offender rehabilitation.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUING BANKRUPTCY NOTICES ON AGED JUDGMENTS: AN ANALYSIS OF ORDER 46 RULE 2(1)(A)
This legal update examines the complexities of issuing bankruptcy notices on judgments older than six years, highlighting the necessity of obtaining court leave under Order 46 rule 2(1)(a).
COMPLIANCE AND CONSEQUENCES UNDER SECTION 348 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2016
This legal update addresses the critical importance of complying with procedural requirements under Section 348 of the Companies Act 2016 in statutory derivative actions. It highlights the consequences of failing to provide mandatory notice and the necessity of naming alleged wrongdoer directors in the leave application, which could result in the Leave Order being set aside.
TORT – DAMAGES – TRESPASS TO LAND – BALANCING THE SCALES – ASSESSING FAIR DAMAGES FOR LAND TRESPASS
Illustrative Scenario X and Y own adjacent properties with a common border. X constructed buildings on his land, which encroached onto 0.28 hectares of Y’s land. The High Court ruled in favor of Y, finding X guilty of trespass and directing the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) to assess the damages
FALSE IMPRISONMENT – UNLAWFUL DETENTION – WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT CROSSES THE LINE- UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND THE QUEST FOR JUSTICE
Illustrative Scenario X accompanied his friend, SP4, to the IPK Melaka in connection with an investigation involving a fight with a Police Officer. While waiting, X was unexpectedly taken to the room of the second officer, where he was blindfolded, stripped, and assaulted. He was then remanded for 7 days,
EQUITY & TRUST – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST – LAND LAW – THE PERILS OF DELAY IN ENFORCING ORAL PROPERTY AGREEMENTS
Illustrative Scenario In this scenario, the property in question was registered under the name of X (the “deceased”). Y alleged that X owed him a significant sum of money and claimed that X had orally agreed to sell the property to him for RM150,000. According to Y, the purchase price
MY 
EN 
ZH