LAND LAW: Boundary - Determination of - Dispute over boundary of adjacent land - Boundary of adjacent land measured by traverse mark method ('first decision') - Land Titles Appeal Board held first decision could not be appealed against - Aggrieved party appealed to High Court - High Court ordered remittance of matter to District Commissioner for Land Titles for re-determination - Deputy Director decided boundary of land measured by high water mark method ('second decision') - Whether High Court seized with jurisdiction to hear appeal - Whether first decision final and conclusive - Whether could be appealed against - Whether High Court order and second decision made in compliance with substantive statutory provisions - National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963, ss. 15, 16, 19, 27(3) & 29(1)  

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Orders - Compliance of - Dispute over boundary of adjacent land - Boundary of adjacent land measured by traverse mark method ('first decision') - Land Titles Appeal Board held that first decision could not be appealed against - Aggrieved party appealed to High Court - High Court ordered remittance of matter to District Commissioner for Land Titles for re-determination - Deputy Director decided boundary of land measured by high water mark method ('second decision') - Whether High Court seized with jurisdiction to hear appeal - Whether High Court order valid - Whether there was appeal or application to set aside High Court order - Whether High Court order binding on parties - National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963, ss. 15, 16, 19, 27(3) & 29(1) 

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Detention under ss. 3 & 6 of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Validity - Statement recorded by investigating officer not signed by applicant - Effect of forgery - Whether recorded statement defective - Whether detention order tainted and nullified  

CONTRACT: Termination - Validity - Parties entered into contract to carry out and complete works on project within a certain period - Failure to complete project within contract period - Defendant granted two extensions of time ('EOT') but rejected third EOT and subsequently terminated contract - Whether defendant obliged to inform plaintiff that third EOT application was considered, granted or rejected - Whether defendant correctly exercised rights under contract to issue certificate of non-completion - Whether defendant breached contract - Whether termination of contract valid

CONTRACT: Breach - Allegation of - Parties entered into contract to carry out and complete works on project within certain period - Failure of plaintiff to complete project within contract period - Defendant granted two extensions of time (EOT) but rejected third EOT and subsequently terminated contract - Whether defendant obliged to inform plaintiff that third EOT application was considered, granted or rejected - Whether defendant correctly exercised rights under contract to issue certificate of non-completion - Whether defendant had breached contract - Whether termination of contract valid  

CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in - Prosecution witness testified that accused was seen throwing bag - Bag discovered to contain dangerous drugs - Whether prosecution witness a witness of truth - Whether there was vigorous cross-examination of reliability of prosecution witness's evidence - Whether failure to do so amounted to acceptance of witness's testimony - Whether testimony of single witness sufficient to ground conviction - Whether accused had possession with knowledge of drugs - Whether charge proved beyond reasonable doubt - Evidence Act 1950, s. 134  

EVIDENCE: Witness - Credibility - Prosecution witness testified that accused was seen throwing bag - Bag discovered to contain dangerous drugs - Whether prosecution witness a witness of truth - Whether there was vigorous cross-examination of reliability of prosecution witness's evidence - Whether failure to do so amounted to acceptance of witness's testimony - Whether testimony of single witness sufficient to ground conviction - Evidence Act 1950, s. 134 

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Application to strike out wound up company's appeal - Whether appeal sanctioned by official liquidator - Whether sanction given without any caveat by liquidator - Whether irregularities may be cured by order of court - Whether appeal to Court of Appeal from original jurisdiction of High Court is one of right - Whether courts ought to be slow in depriving prospective appellant in exercising constitutional and statutory right of appeal - Whether Companies Act 1965 contain provisions to deprive appeal to Court of Appeal - Companies Act 1965, s. 236(2)(a)  

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Right of appeal - Whether appeal sanctioned by official liquidator - Whether sanction given without any caveat by liquidator - Whether irregularities may be cured by order of court - Whether appeal to Court of Appeal from original jurisdiction of High Court is one of right - Whether courts ought to be slow in depriving prospective appellant in exercising constitutional and statutory right of appeal - Whether Companies Act 1965 contain provisions to deprive appeal to Court of Appeal - Companies Act 1965, s. 236(2)(a)

TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Damages - Assessment of - Special damages - Expenses reasonably expected to be incurred due to circumstances - Medical expenses - Whether patient justified to seek follow up treatment from doctor at private hospital - General damages - Whether reasonably estimated and allowed - Whether care provided by family members ought to be estimated and awarded - Whether patient incurred expenses when requesting medical reports from hospitals - Whether patient awarded damages for pain and suffering - Suppression of patient's medical records and internal inquiry report in breach of consent judgment entered by parties in pre-action discovery proceedings - Whether aggravating factors to be taken into account - Whether patient ought to be awarded aggravated damages  

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Pre-action discovery - Proceedings - Claim of medical negligence - Whether patient incurred expenses when requesting for medical reports from hospitals - Discovery of medical records and information of parties involved - Whether patient should be awarded costs for pre-action discovery - Whether foreseeable that patient might take legal action against those responsible - Whether patient incurred expenses in investigation and discovery of facts prior to filing claim under tort of negligence - Whether patient ought to be awarded costs for pre-action discovery - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 r. 7A 

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman terus - Pelaksanaan - Penghakiman terus dimasukkan terhadap pelanggan bank - Bank memfailkan permohonan pelaksanaan penghakiman terus tujuh tahun kemudian - Sama ada bank mempunyai alasan munasabah untuk kelengahan terlampau membuat permohonan pelaksanaan - Sama ada bank boleh melaksanakan hak sebagai pemegang gadaian - Sama ada mahkamah wajar melaksanakan kuasa budi bicara memberi kebenaran menguatkuasakan penghakiman terus - Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 46 k. 2  

HAD MASA: Tempoh had masa - Pelaksanaan penghakiman - Penghakiman terus dimasukkan terhadap pelanggan bank - Bank memfailkan permohonan pelaksanaan penghakiman terus tujuh tahun kemudian - Sama ada bank mempunyai alasan munasabah untuk kelengahan terlampau membuat permohonan pelaksanaan - Akta Had Masa 1953  

CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Specific performance - Vendor and purchaser entered into agreement for sale and purchase of land - Purchaser paid deposit and entered caveat on land but vendor sold and transferred land to third party - Third party sold and transferred land to fourth party - Whether purchaser paid deposit - Whether purchaser could claim for deposit paid - Whether purchaser ready, able and willing to perform obligations under sale and purchase agreement - Whether purchaser entitled to specific performance of sale and purchase agreement 

LAND LAW: Transfer - Fraud - Allegation of - Vendor and purchaser entered into agreement for sale and purchase of land - Purchaser paid deposit and entered caveat on land but vendor sold and transferred land to third party - Third party sold and transferred land to fourth party - Allegation that purchaser's signature on withdrawal of caveat form forged, enabling sale of land to subsequent parties - Whether allegations of forgery and fraud proved on balance of probabilities - Whether allegations supported by documentary evidence 

LIMITATION: Land - Fraud - Allegation of - Vendor and purchaser entered into agreement for sale and purchase of land - Purchaser paid deposit and entered caveat on land but vendor sold and transferred land to third party - Third party sold and transferred land to fourth party - Allegations that purchaser's signature on withdrawal of caveat form forged, enabling sale of land to subsequent parties - Purchaser commenced action almost four years after discovery of alleged forgery and fraud - Accrual of cause of action - Whether limitation period 12 years - Sarawak Limitation Ordinance