ANTERO HARAPAN SDN BHD v. RESTU TEGUH SDN BHD  6 CLJ 462
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
ANSELM CHARLES FERNANDIS JC
[COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO: 28NCC-60-10-2014]
30 NOVEMBER 2017
COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Setting aside of agreement – Petitioner notified liquidator of intention to purchase land – Petitioner agreed to advance required amount to acquire land from State Government provided liquidator sold land to it – Contributories objected and required liquidator to accept advance as loan from petitioner to acquire land and sell it by tender or auction – Whether agreement entered by petitioner and liquidator valid – Whether ought to be set aside – Whether land alienated with condition to be utilised for residential or commercial purpose – Whether liquidator was acting properly and impartially in dealing with land – Companies Act 1965, ss. 236 & 237 – National Land Code, s. 78(3)
DR TEH BEE TEE v. DR JOSHUA MOHANRAJ DANIEL & ANOR  6 CLJ 616
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
AKHTAR TAHIR J
[WRIT NO: 23NCVC-28-12-2017]
14 FEBRUARY 2018
TORT: Negligence – Medical negligence – Breach of duty – Pathologist wrongly diagnosed patient’s cancer to be benign – Whether led malignant cancer to spread, causing patient immeasurable physical and mental pain – Whether pathologist negligent in coming to wrong diagnosis – Whether obvious mistakes made by pathologist in diagnosing samples – Failure to ascertain history of patient – Samples sent in small pieces leading to possible inaccurate results – Whether pathologist should have asked for further clarification before carrying out diagnosis – Failure in determining shape of cells correctly – Whether had profound effect on final results – Failure to carry out additional immunostains – Whether breach of pathologist’s duty
TORT: Negligence – Medical negligence – Liability – Pathologist wrongly diagnosed patient’s cancer to be benign – Whether led malignant cancer to spread causing patient immeasurable physical and mental pain – Whether hospital vicariously liable for losses suffered by patient as result of pathologist’s negligence – Whether hospital had role to play in patient’s gynaecologist decision to send samples for analysis to pathology department – Breach of pathologist’s duty due to personal failings – Whether pathologist an employee or had any contract of service with hospital – Whether there was antecedent relationship between patient and hospital
DAMAGES: Medical negligence – Claim for – Pathologist wrongly diagnosed patient’s cancer to be benign – Whether led malignant cancer to spread, causing patient immeasurable physical and mental pain – Whether depression and mental agony suffered by patient foreseeable – Special damages – Whether financial consequence of divorce between patient and husband too remote to be recoverable – Claim for loss of income – Whether patient would have to undergo future medical and surgical treatment – Claim for future loss of earning or loss of earning capacity – Whether surgery affected patient’s capability – Claim for pain, suffering and loss of amenities – Whether ought to be allowed
SHAHNAZ MAJID lwn. DATO' SRI MAHMUD ABU BEKIR TAIB  6 CLJ 663
MAHKAMAH TINGGI SYARIAH, KUALA LUMPUR
MUHAMAD ABDUL KARIM WAHAB HMTS
[KES MAL NO: 14100-016-0107-2011]
10 MAC 2016
UNDANG-UNDANG ISLAM: Perceraian – Mutaah – Sama ada wajib dibayar oleh suami selepas berlaku perceraian – Jumlah patut – Prinsip dan faktor yang perlu diambil kira – Kemampuan suami – Tindakan meninggalkan isteri selama sepuluh tahun – Sama ada tidak boleh dimaafkan – Keaiban, penderitaan dan kesedihan isteri – Akta Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984, s. 56
Uber rape case: Cab driver Shiv Kumar Yadav found guilty, faces life imprisonment
More than 10 months after a 25-year-old woman was raped and sexually assaulted inside a radio taxi in the national capital, a fast-track court in Delhi Tuesday convicted cab driver Shiv Kumar Yadav, holding him guilty on charges of rape and endangering the life of the victim. Yadav, a former driver of Uber taxi service, faces a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
Sacking by phone, text or email only acceptable in ‘rare circumstances’, Fair Work rules
AUSTRALIAEmploymentBeauty salon worker should have been sacked face-to-faceEmployees should only be sacked by phone, text or email in “rare circumstances” such as when there is a genuine risk of physical violence, the Fair Work Commission has warned. The industrial relations tribunal made the comment in throwing out an unfair dismissal case, finding in favour of the employer but “making one criticism of the process”. That was despite the employer complying with the Small Business Unfair Dismissal Code laid out by the workplace cop, the Fair Work Ombudsman, which makes no requirement for employees to be let go face-to-face.
Colour swatch error proves fatal in V Energy trademark war with Coca-Cola
AUSTRALIAIntellectual propertyFrucor's original error proves fatal in trademark war with Coca-ColaIt's good to be green, especially if you're an energy drink. But a trademark war between the maker of V Energy drinks and Coca-Cola proves it's also good to be attentive to detail. Frucor Beverages has lost its fight to trademark the signature green of its V Energy range, after attaching the wrong colour swatch to its initial application six years ago.
Flying instructor whose boss threw cup of tea at him awarded £19,000
UKEmploymentFlying instructor whose boss threw tea at him was unfairly and wrongfully dismissedA flying instructor whose boss threw a cup of tea at him in a dispute over an aircraft has been awarded more than £19,000, after an employment tribunal found he was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. Phil Jones worked as the only fixed wing flying instructor at Flylight Airsports in Northamptonshire from 2006 up to his dismissal in 2017. He left his job following an argument that erupted in August 2017, after discovering that the aircraft he usually flew had not been serviced despite two colleagues having previously said they would do so.
Ohio v. American Express: Supreme Court rules in favor of Amex in antitrust case
USAntitrustThe Supreme Court handed American Express a win Monday in a lawsuit over rules it imposes on merchants who accept its cards.Under their contracts, merchants who accept American Express generally can't encourage customers to use other credit cards, even though those cards may charge merchants lower fees. The federal government and a group of states sued over those so-called anti-steering provisions, arguing that they violate federal law. But on Monday the high court ruled 5-4 in favor of American Express. "In this case, we must decide whether Amex's antisteering provisions violate federal antitrust law. We conclude they do not," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion for himself and his conservative colleagues, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
Hermes couriers are workers, not self-employed, tribunal rules
UKEmploymentHermes couriers are workers, not self-employed, tribunal rulesA group of Hermes couriers have won their fight to be treated as workers instead of independent contractors in what has been described as one of the most significant victories against exploitation of gig-economy workers. An employment tribunal in Leeds ruled that the couriers were entitled to receive the minimum wage and holiday pay, and to reclaim unlawful deductions from their wages, because they had incorrectly been classified as self-employed.
Coca-Cola's 'Zero' trademark worth, well, maybe zero?
USIntellectual propertyDecade-long trademark battle between bitter rivals takes another twist as court overturns 2016 decisionThe Federal Circuit has ruled that The Coca-Cola Company might not be able to register its “Zero” brand as a trademark, ordering more proceedings on whether it is just a generic term for calorie-free soda.The US Court of Appeals overturned a 2016 decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that the "Zero" brand name served as a source-designating trademark for Coca-Cola. The court sided with the Dr Pepper Snapple Group in a case that has been in litigation for over a decade.
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK