"Under the laws, after having compensated the parcel owners of strata units for the market values of their respective strata units, the acquisition authority still has to pay a reasonable compensation to the management corporation of the strata development for having acquired the common property in the same strata development in the same acquisition process, provided that the valuation of such compensation amount shall be done in accordance with the provisions of sub-para. 1(2C) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960, namely, the basis of the reasonable cost to the proprietor of the scheduled land of using or purchasing other land and devoting it to the same purpose to which the scheduled land is devoted." - per Tee Geok Hock JC in Perbadanan Pengurusan Ara Ampang v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2021] 6 CLJ 441

“It is clear that Parliament's intention in enacting section 99(1) was to leave it entirely to the Disciplinary Board to deal with all matters concerning the conduct of advocates and solicitors or pupils, hence the direction in imperative terms that the complaint "shall" in the first place be made or referred to the Disciplinary Board. There is nothing in the LPA that gives the Malaysian Bar the right to place before the floor of the AGM any complaint concerning the conduct of an advocate and solicitor by way of a motion under section 64(6).”

“To allow any member of the Malaysian Bar to lodge a section 99(1) complaint by way of motion under section 64(6) is to render section 99(1) completely otiose and denuded of all meaning, for then any complaint concerning the conduct of an advocate and solicitor could just be made to the Malaysian Bar by way of a motion under section 64(6) and to be summarily resolved on the floor of the House without first referring it to the Disciplinary Board as required by section 99(1). That will be to defeat the object behind section 99(1) of the LPA.”

– per Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ in Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah v. Tommy Thomas & Ors [2021] 1 LNS 1488; [2021] CLJ JT (13)

"In my considered view, s. 235 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 merely protects the network facilities from wrongful acts or omissions which have the effect of altering or tampering with the network facilities and from wrongful acts of mischief which have the effect of destroying, damaging or interfering with the lawful operation of the network facilities. Implicit in s. 235 is that the network facilities have been duly licensed by the Commission and are lawfully erected and continued at the land with the consent or agreement of the landowner. It is not the intent of s. 235 to deprive any landowner of his proprietary rights after the expiry of the lease, tenancy or permit previously granted to the network provider who erected the network facilities on the landowner's land. Similarly, s. 235 is not intended to empower the network provider to compel a landowner to let the network provider continue to use the land for operating the network facilities without the landowner's consent or agreement after the expiry of the previous lease, tenancy or licence or permit. I cannot find any express words in s. 235 of CMA which can be interpreted to that effect according to their natural and ordinary meaning" – per Tee Geok Hock JC in Konsortium Jaringan Selangor Sdn Bhd v. Projek Lintasan Sungai Besi-Ulu Klang Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 CLJ 527

“We consider it apposite to emphasise that a person's right to defend himself or herself against a criminal charge includes the right to obtain and adduce other evidence in support of his or her defence. It is desirable in the interest of justice for the defence to obtain the fullest possible access to the facts relevant to the issue in the case. In this regard, the prosecution has a duty to make available to the defence witnesses who had been investigated by the police and from whom the statements have been recorded. This is an important or vital corollary or element of an accused's right to a fair trial.”

– per Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJ in Rosli Yusof v. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 681