He touched his client money once; the law’s answer reveals what the profession fears most.
Read More
The victim was the insured’s husband, riding to a work audit in his wife’s car. The insurer said the policy did not cover him, sat out the trial’s coverage fight, lost it, and then demanded the victim sue all over again. The Federal Court declined to oblige.
Read More
The insurer won a declaration against its own insured, then waved it at the crash victim like a writ of execution. Appeal No. 7 of Sa’Amran asked the question the order itself could not answer: whom does a section 96(3) declaration actually bind?
Read More
The victim won his judgment; the insurer’s answer was to sue him for asking to be paid. Appeal No. 6 of Sa’Amran ended the myth of the second lawsuit — and Chen Boon Kwee has since nailed the lid down.
Read More
Two informal sales, a register three years out of date, and an insurer hoping that a 1992 agreement had quietly erased a 1985 letter. The Federal Court’s memory proved longer than the insurer’s.
Read More
An insurer raced to the High Court for a declaration that it owed nothing — before the trial court had decided whether its rider was even in the accident. It won. The victim then won his trial. Two judgments, one collision, and a paper judgment not worth the paper it is printed on. The Federal Court called it a serious error of law and fact — and a breach of ...
Read More
Section 96(3) lets an insurer escape a victim’s judgment — but only if it gives notice, and gives it in time. In Appeals No. 2 and No. 3 of Sa’Amran, two insurers skipped that small step. The Federal Court showed them the price.
Read More
A car sold on a handshake in 2007. A register never told. A crash in 2014. The insurer said the policy died with the sale; the Federal Court read the statute and found the promise still standing exactly where Parliament had left it.
Read More
Two contradictory oaths, half the witnesses, the wrong court, and a declaration that came too late. Appeal No. 8 of Sa’Amran is a study in how an insurer loses a fraud case it never properly brought.
Read More
No: only Parliament wields the power to amend the Constitution:(Article 159). Yet deeper currents flow beneath: MA63 protects East Malaysian rights. Any constitutional amendment requires their consent. And it is an international Treaty lodged with the UN. And timeless wisdom echoes: "Why fix what isn't broken?"
Read More