Print this page
CLJ Pulse Header
Issue #38/2025
18 September 2025

Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents.

New This Week

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BHD v. SIDQI AHMAD SAID AHMAD & ORS [2025] 8 CLJ 567
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD J
[SUIT NO: WA-22NCC-264-06-2022]
1 JULY 2025

(i) Discovery to trace misappropriated funds can be granted even if there's a significant time gap between the original disbursement and later payments, as funds can be channelled through multiple entities over time; (ii) The formal recording of transactions in audited statements does not negate the need for discovery if there are discrepancies, lack of supporting documentation, or signs of concealed fund destinations; (iii) Discovery is not a fishing expedition merely because it might incidentally reveal information about additional parties, provided it is otherwise properly founded and necessary; (iv) In cases of sophisticated financial fraud, a broad scope of discovery, including details of ATM cards, banking facilities, and other banking products, is justified to trace all potential avenues of fund dissipation.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Application for - Parties entered into loan agreement - Borrower defaulted in repayment - Borrower obtained stay of execution subject to bank's right to appoint receiver and manager ('R&M') under debenture - Discovery of irregularities in relation to loan - Bank sought discoveries of banking records regarding certain accounts in order to trace disbursed loan sum - Whether documents sought necessary - Whether temporally impossible for payments made to alleged recipients to have originated from loan funds - Whether R&M's findings one-sided assertions - Whether formal documentation and accounting of transactions in audited statements negated suggestion of fraudulent conduct - Whether discovery application constituted fishing expedition - Whether procedurally proper - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 r. 7A

BANKING: Banking facility - Loan facility - Application by bank for discovery of documents - Discovery of irregularities in relation to loan - Bank sought discoveries of banking records regarding certain accounts in order to trace disbursed loan sum - Whether documents sought necessary - Whether temporally impossible for payments made to alleged recipients to have originated from loan funds - Whether receiver and manager's findings one-sided assertions - Whether formal documentation and accounting of transactions in audited statements negated any suggestion of fraudulent conduct - Whether discovery application constituted fishing expedition - Whether procedurally proper - Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949, s. 7


APPEAL UPDATES

  1. GSP v. TBC [2025] CLJU 1036 overulling the High Court case of GSP v. TBC [Petisyen Penceraian No: BA-33-372-05/2018]

  2. Aaishah Healther Bong Colin v. Pendaftar Muallaf Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Ors [2025] CLJU 1209 overulling the High Court case of Aaishah Healther Bong Colin v. Pendaftar Muallaf Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Ors [2024] 3 CLJ 842

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2025] CLJU 123

SHAZWANI AZAMI & ANOR v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS

The provision under O. 24 r. 7A(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 gives the discretion to the Court to order discovery in order to identify any possible parties to any proceedings in such circumstances where the Court thinks it is just to make such an order and on such terms as it deems appropriate. This discretion can only be exercised if there is any concealment of the identities of the personnel involved.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Documents - Medical reports - Discovery of documents before commencement of any proceedings - Application against Government of Malaysia and hospitals - Relevant medical personnels were not named in suit - Whether defendant was concealing identities of its employees - Whether plaintiff had acted diligently in discovering identity of medical personnel - Whether documents were relevant - Whether applicant was able to specify and describe documents required for subsequent proceeding - Whether documents were in possession, custody and control of defendants - Whether application amounts to a fishing expedition

  • For the plaintiff - Navpreet Kaur; M/s P S Ranjan & Co 
  • For the defendant - Nur Melati Diana Abd Wahab; Jabatan Peguam Negara, Wilayah Persekutuan

[2025] CLJU 125

CHONG YUN PHIN v. MUSAH GHANI & ORS

Filing of a new suit which contains substantially the same issues and reliefs as the previous suit is an abuse of process of the Court although the previous suit was struck out for failing to comply with a peremptory order. Mere addition of a new defendant and subject matter is not sufficient to justify the filing of a new suit with the same issues and relief as in the previous suit.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Abuse of process - New suit premised on same cause of action and parties in previous suits - Recovery of land - New defendant included in new suit - Whether there were new facts and issues that could change character and nature of claim - Whether plaintiff's grievances, complaints and accusations in both suits remained same - Whether action was an abuse of process of Court - Whether claim disclosed reasonable cause of action - Whether claim obviously unsustainable

  • For the plaintiff - M/s Douglas Lim TY & Associates 
  • For the defendants - M/s Ambo & Co

[2025] CLJU 149

LOW JEE KEONG v. NEXT FORTUNE SDN BHD

Trial is not required when the terms in the agreement are explicit and express. Where the terms of agreement clearly state the capacity of the parties, then the capacity of the parties cannot be a trial issue.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Issues to be tried - Sale of land - Settlement agreement - Whether capacity of purchaser was an issue to be tried - Whether there was representation which was triable - Whether Court should examine agreements entered into between parties to ascertain rights and obligations of parties - Whether liability of defendant has been established

  • For the plaintiff - Goik Kenzy & Jacinta Tan Szu Minn; M/s Jacinta Kenzyr
  • For the defendant - Ganesh Magenthiran & Alissa Mohd Sabri; M/s Ganesh Azhar & Associates

[2025] CLJU 168

MARCEL JUDE M S JOSEPH v. SABAH PUBLISHING HOUSE SDN BHD & ORS

Sanction under s. 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 cannot be granted retrospectively. It follows that an undischarged bankrupt cannot commence a legal action without a sanction and cannot backdate the sanction. An action commenced by an undischarged bankrupt without sanction is frivolous and vexatious and should be struck out.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Locus standi - Action commenced by undischarged bankrupt - Retrospective sanction - Whether plaintiff was incompetent to maintain action - Whether plaintiff's locus standi was a threshold issue - Whether sanction complied with s. 38(1)(a) of Insolvency Act 1967 - Whether sanction was backdated - Whether action was frivolous and vexatious - Whether action should be struck out

  • For the plaintiff - Priskila Akwila Sinem; M/s Priskila Akwila, Advocates 
  • For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Ho Kin Kong; M/s Ho Chong Yong

[2025] CLJU 132

MOHD AL-BAZLINIZAM MOHD ALI & ORS v. BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

1. Tiada sebarang perkara atau permohonan interlokutori lain patut didengar dan diputuskan selepas suatu penghakiman telah diberikan kecuali permohonan untuk penggantungan perlaksanaan. Justeru, Mahkamah tidak boleh mendengar permohonan defendan untuk penzahiran dokumen selepas permohonan plaintif untuk penghakiman terus dibenarkan.

2. Institusi kewangan boleh menamatkan kemudahan pembiayaan apabila peminjam gagal mematuhi syarat-syarat dalam surat tawaran. Dalam keadaan sedemikian, pembelaan bahawa bayaran ansuran telah dibuat dan tiada sebarang tunggakan pembayaran balik kemudahan pembiayaan tersebut bukanlah satu pembelaan yang bermerit.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman terus - Perbankan - Jaminan - Peminjam telah digulungkan - Penamatan kemudahan pembiayaan - Kejadian keingkaran - Tuntutan keseluruhan baki pembiayaan - Sama ada kegagalan mematuhi syarat-syarat dalam surat tawaran mewajarkan penamatan kemudahan pembiayaan - Sama ada pembelaan ketiadaan tunggakan adalah bermerit - Sama ada defendan boleh membawa sebarang pembelaan bahawa bayaran perlu dibuat kepada pihak insolvensi - Sama ada plaintif berhak menuntut bayaran daripada penjamin - Sama ada isu-isu untuk dibicarakan telah ditimbulkan

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Permohonan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen yang membenarkan permohonan penghakiman terus dan tidak mendengar permohonan penzahiran dokumen - Sama ada mahkamah boleh mendengar permohonan penzahiran dokumen defendan selepas membenarkan penghakiman terus plaintif - Sama ada prosiding telah berakhir selepas penghakiman terus dibenarkan

  • Bagi pihak perayu-perayu/defendan-defendan - Nik Arisya Syamimi Nik Rozhan; T/n Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz 
  • Bagi pihak responden/plaintif - Hazeeq Fadzli Hasrul Sani; T/n Akram Hizri Azad & Azmir

CLJ 2025 Volume 8 (Part 3)

(i) For the purpose of tax exemptions under para. 2 of the Exemption Order 2009, an employee is deemed to have 'control' over a company, and thus not qualified for the exemption, if they are the largest single shareholder, even if their percentage of shares is less than 50%, because 'control' under s. 139 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('Act') turns on comparative, not absolute ownership; (ii) A penalty under s. 113(2) of the Act, for submitting an incorrect tax return, should not be imposed if the taxpayer's failure to declare income tax was based on a bona fide, albeit incorrect, interpretation of a tax exemption provision, without any intent to deceive or conceal. In such circumstances, the Inland Revenue Board has a duty to exercise its discretion to remit the penalty under s. 124(3) of the Act.
Lam Kam Wing v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2025] 8 CLJ 355 [CA]

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Additional assessment - Managing director ('MD') of company held 30% of shares - MD provided with annual allowances - Company had not included MD's allowances in scheduled tax return - Whether allowances exempt from income tax - Whether para. 2 of Income Tax (Exemption) Order 2009 applied to company - Whether MD had control over company through ownership of shares - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 139(1)(b)

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Penalties - Managing director ('MD') of company held 30% of shares - MD provided with annual allowances - Company under impression that allowances exempt from income tax pursuant to para. 2 of Income Tax (Exemption) Order 2009 - Company had not included MD's allowances in scheduled tax return - Company imposed with 45% penalty - Whether company intended to deceive and conceal by failing to declare allowances - Whether company's conduct bona fide - Whether imposition of penalties justified - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 113(2)

 

 

Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim JCA
Mohamed Zaini Mazlan JCA
Alwi Abdul Wahab JCA

  • For the appellant - George Lim & Chew Peng Hui; M/s Battenberg & Talma
  • For the respondent - Ashrina Ramzan Ali & Surani Che Ismail; Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia

Mahkamah mempunyai tanggungjawab kehakiman untuk memberikan keadilan dan tanggungjawab itu perlu dilaksanakan dengan teliti. Mahkamah perlu menganalisis dan memberi pertimbangan sewajarnya terhadap kesemua isu-isu yang dibangkitkan dalam perbicaraan jenayah, khususnya, pembelaan yang dibangkitkan oleh tertuduh. Jika isu-isu yang dibangkitkan tertuduh diabaikan, mahkamah perlu memberi penjelasan mengapa itu dibuat. Kegagalan membuat analisis dengan sewajarnya terhadap kesemua isu yang dibangkitkan akan menjurus pada salah arahan yang ditakuti akan memberi impak besar ke atas perbicaraan.
Mohammad Syafiq Shah Dahli lwn. PP [2025] 8 CLJ 372 [CA]

|

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Perbicaraan - Kes prima facie - Pertuduhan atas kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Sama ada isu-isu yang dibangkitkan di peringkat pendakwaan dinilai sewajarnya - Sama ada hakim bicara konsisten dalam dapatan di akhir kes pendakwaan - Sama ada ketiadaan arahan jelas oleh hakim bicara di akhir kes pendakwaan memprejudis hak tertuduh untuk mendapat makluman awal tentang pembelaan - Sama ada terdapat kecelaruan serius dalam dapatan hakim - Sama ada terjumlah pada salah arahan serius - Sama ada salah arahan boleh dipulihkan

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah - Elemen-elemen kesalahan - Sama ada tertuduh dibuktikan mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan - Sama ada percanggahan berkait penemuan dadah dijelaskan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan tentang dadah yang ditemui - Sama ada keterangan sokongan selari dengan dapatan hakim bicara - Sama ada pembelaan satu fikiran semula atau penafian semata-mata - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman selamat

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran - Pembuktian kesalahan - Sama ada fakta-fakta pembelaan diberi pertimbangan sewajarnya - Sama ada hakim bicara membuat analisis terhadap isu-isu yang dibangkitkan dalam pembelaan perayu - Sama ada keterangan sokongan dipanggil untuk menyingkir keraguan dalam keterangan saksi - Sama ada kredibiliti saksi dicabar - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi penting mewajarkan pemakaian inferens bawah s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Sama ada tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan terhadap kes pendakwaan - Sama ada wujud kecelaruan serius dalam dapatan hakim bicara - Sama ada tertuduh diprejudis

 

Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali HMR
Azman Abdullah HMR
Azhahari Kamal Ramli HMR

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Nik Mohamed Ikhwan Nik Mahamud, Mohd Riza Zakaria & Dhiya Syazwani Izyan Mohd Akhir; T/n Nik Ikhwan & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Atiqah Abdul Karim; TPR

Under the doctrine of 'group of companies', an arbitration agreement directly entered by certain companies might bind other entities of their group if the latter appear to be true parties to the arbitration agreement because of their participation in the negotiation, performance or termination of the agreement, provided this is in accordance with the parties' intention.
PT Wijaya Karya (Persero) TBK (A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of Republic Of Indonesia) & Anor v. Zecon Bhd & Anor [2025] 8 CLJ 401 [CA]

ARBITRATION: Award - Findings - Findings by arbitrator set aside by High Court - Whether there was valid arbitration agreement between parties - Whether parties authorised arbitral tribunal to decide disputes - Whether supplementary agreement existed contemporaneously with principal agreement - Whether parties to arbitration correctly identified by arbitrator pursuant to principal-agent capacity - Whether there was serious breach of natural justice impacting outcome of arbitration - Whether attempts to revisit findings of arbitrator permissible in law - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 9(1)

 

 

Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA
Azimah Omar JCA
Noorin Badaruddin JCA

  • For the appellants - Arthur Lee Cheng Chuan & Sylvester Lai Tze Yang; M/s Arthur Lee, Lin & Co
  • For the respondents - Sim Hui Chuang & Lim Lip Sze; M/s Reddi & Co Advocs

(i) A claim alleging fraud must be specifically pleaded in the statement of claim with sufficient particulars; a general allegation of fraud, or an allegation of fraud introduced only in a reply to the statement of defence, is insufficient; (ii) A claim for recovery of damages related to land alienation is statute-barred if filed beyond the prescribed limitation period which, in this case, was almost 26 years after the alienation, and the discovery of alleged fraud at a later date does not restart the limitation period if fraud was not properly pleaded as the cause of action.
Superintendent Of Land And Survey Kuching & Anor v. Bisi Jinggot & Ors [2025] 8 CLJ 418 [CA]

| |

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Statement of claim - Pleadings - Fraud - Allegations of fraud surrounding alienation of land - Whether particulars of fraud pleaded -Whether general allegations of fraud sufficient - Whether fraud could be pleaded in reply to statement of defence

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Statement of claim - Striking out - Application for determination of questions of law without full trial - Whether declaratory orders sought sustainable - Whether action ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A, O. 33 r. 2 & O. 92

LAND LAW: Native customary rights - Alienation of land - Native customary rights land alienated to third party - Claim for damages - Whether claim for damages statute-barred - Whether discovery of fraud relevant for computation of limitation period - Land Code (Sarawak) (Cap 81), s. 202 - Limitation Ordinance (Sarawak) (Cap 49), s. 18 - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s. 2(a)

LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual - Land dispute - Native customary rights land alienated to third party - Claim for damages - When limitation period accrued - Whether claim statute-barred - Land Code (Sarawak) (Cap 81), s. 202 - Limitation Ordinance (Sarawak) (Cap 49), s. 18 - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s. 2(a)

Azizah Nawawi JCA
Mohamed Zaini Mazlan JCA
Alwi Abdul Wahab JCA

  • For the defendants/appellants - Joseph Chioh, Noor Maiza Akma Ahmad Lafti & Justin Lau Gek Liong; AG's Chambers, Sarawak
  • For the plaintiffs/respondents - Andrew Winston Kaya; M/s A Winston Kaya Advocs

(i) A conviction for murder can be sustained even if the actual cause of death is not conclusively proven, particularly when the body is unrecovered or severely dismembered, provided there is sufficient evidence to infer the accused caused the death; (ii) The requisite mens rea for murder under s. 300(c) of the Penal Code can be inferred from the nature of the injuries inflicted, even if not explicitly stated by the trial judge. Motive is not a necessary element to prove murder when the conviction relies on overwhelming circumstantial evidence; (iii) Following the enactment of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, a court, in exercising its discretion on sentencing for murder, may maintain the death sentence for exceptionally brutal and unremorseful crimes.
Wong Zing Haw v. PP [2025] 8 CLJ 433 [CA]

|

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences - Murder - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused decapitated wife and cut her body parts into several pieces before disposing of them in river - Prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence - Accused found guilty, convicted as per charge and sentenced to death by hanging - Whether necessary to conclusively prove actual cause of death - Whether sufficient evidence to infer accused caused death - Whether mens rea established - Whether motive necessary - Penal Code, ss. 300 & 302

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing - Murder - Accused decapitated wife and cut her body parts into several pieces before disposing of them in river - Accused found guilty, convicted as per charge and sentenced to death by hanging - Abolition of mandatory death penalty - Discretion of court - Factors to consider - Whether death sentence ought to be maintained - Penal Code, ss. 300 & 302 - Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023

 

Azizah Nawawi JCA
See Mee Chun JCA
Mohamed Zaini Mazlan JCA

  • For the appellant - Orlando SW Chua & Vanessa Ting Ann Yee; M/s Wong Orlando Chua & Kuok
  • For the respondent - Mohd Khusairy Ibrahim; AG's Chambers

In judicial review proceedings, monetary compensation is different from damages. An application for monetary compensation under O. 53 r. 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 in guise of damages ought not to be entertained by the court. Such claim is an abuse of the process of the court.
Banggi Quarry Sdn Bhd v. Menteri Tenaga Dan Sumber Asli & Anor [2025] 8 CLJ 459 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Application for - Substantive action for certiorari to quash decision by Minister and further and consequential relief for damages - Whether monetary compensation in judicial review different from damages - Whether claim arose as monetary compensation as envisaged under O. 53 r. 2(3) of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether claim for monetary compensation in guise of damages or refund of deposit amounted to abuse of process of court - Whether applicant established breach of fundamental right over and above realm of private law - Whether applicant entitled to monetary damages

 

 

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J

  • For the applicant - Rajendra Navaratnam, Mak Hon Pan & Koh Yi Ting, M/s Azman Davidson & Co
  • For the respondents - Nur Irmawatie Daud; SFC

Dalam kes di mana beberapa kenyataan dibuat dalam ruang masa yang dekat, mahkamah akan mempertimbangkan sama ada pembaca yang munasabah boleh membuat inferens tentang perkaitan antara kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut, yang membawa pada tafsiran fitnah terhadap plaintif, walaupun salah satu kenyataan pada mulanya samar-samar tentang identiti. Walau bagaimanapun, jika masa dan konteks menjadikan inferens tersebut tidak munasabah buat seseorang yang munasabah, elemen pengenalpastian identiti tidak akan dipenuhi.
Haris Embong & Satu Lagi lwn. Rafidah Ibrahim [2025] 8 CLJ 467 [HC]

TORT: Fitnah - Fitnah bertulis - Hantaran dalam media sosial - Ganti rugi - Tuntutan - Defendan mengeluarkan kenyataan-kenyataan pada dua masa berasingan - Sama ada kenyataan-kenyataan memfitnah pihak-pihak yang menuntut - Sama ada elemen-elemen fitnah dipenuhi - Sama ada kenyataan pertama dan kedua saling berkaitan - Sama ada kenyataan-kenyataan merujuk pada defendan-defendan

 

 

Johan Lee Kien How H

  • Bagi pihak plaintif-plaintif - Joycelyn Goh & Foo Hong Chuen; T/n Izral Partnership
  • Bagi pihak defendan - Nur Amirah Shamsulbahrin; T/n Mira, Sham, Yong & Connie Ng

The doctrine of exhaustion of rights does not apply where the infringer fails to prove that the goods originated from the trademark owner or that the latter consented to the use of their marks, particularly when the goods have been altered without any indication of refurbishment.
Tatsuno Corporation & Anor v. Flowfuel Sdn Bhd [2025] 8 CLJ 499 [HC]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademark - Infringement of trademark - Fuel pumps - Fuel pumps supplied by trademark infringer bore marks identical or similar to claimant's marks - Fuel pumps did not originate from claimant - Whether there was infringement of marks - Whether infringer used, in course of trade, sign identical/similar with claimant's marks - Whether used for goods and services identical or similar for which claimant's marks were used - Whether infringement caused deception and/or confusion to customers and prospective customers - Whether defence of exhaustion of rights available to infringer - Trademarks Act 2019, s. 54

 

 

Adlin Abdul Majid J

  • For the plaintiffs - Cindy Goh Joo Seong & Choong Xin Xian; M/s Cheang & Ariff
  • For the defendant - Steven Cheok; M/s Adnan Sundra & Low

An insurer is entitled to repudiate liability under an insurance policy, if the insured fails to disclose circumstances known to them at the time of proposing for coverage that could give rise to a claim, and if the policy explicitly excludes coverage for such known circumstances. This breach, stemming from a warranty that all information provided is true and accurate and no information has been withheld, allows the insurer to repudiate the contract, particularly when the undisclosed incident falls within an exclusion clause of the policy.
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia v. Zurich Takaful Malaysia Bhd [2025] 8 CLJ 517 [HC]

INSURANCE: Policy - Repudiation - Insured provider of medical services - Insured completed proposal form for insurance policy - Insurance policy aimed at indemnifying insured against any claim, inter alia, for breach of professional duty in provision of any medical service - Alleged act or omission occurred after retroactive date stated in Schedule - Insured failed to disclose circumstance that might lead to claim when proposing to insurer for coverage - Insurer repudiated liability upon discovery that there was legal claim - Whether there was breach of basis clause - Whether such breach would entitle insurer to repudiate liability or involvement in suit against insured

 

 

Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin J

  • For the plaintiff - Sharmini Navaratnam & Nabilah Farhanah; M/s Siva Dharma & Assocs
  • For the defendant - Tan Boon Wee & Emily Chong; M/s Othman Hashim & Co

 


ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. 'MAINTAINING THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIARY: AN ACCESSIBLE AND VALUES-BASED JUSTICE SYSTEM' SPEECH DELIVERED AT 19TH CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES OF ASIA AND THE PACIFIC+ [Read excerpt]
    by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon* [2025] CLJU(A) lxxxvi

  2. [2025] CLJU(A) lxxxvi
    SINGAPORE

    'MAINTAINING THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIARY: AN ACCESSIBLE AND VALUES-BASED JUSTICE SYSTEM'
    SPEECH DELIVERED AT 19TH CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES OF ASIA AND THE PACIFIC+


    by
    Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*

    I. Introduction

    1. Good afternoon. Let me first extend my heartfelt congratulations to the LAWASIA team and the Malaysian Bar for putting together the 37th LAWASIA Conference. As has become customary, this conference is held in conjunction with the Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific, and I want to thank all our friends and colleagues from Malaysia for your exceptional hospitality and the outstanding arrangements that have been made for both conferences.

    2. Almost three decades ago at the 6th Conference of Chief Justices, twenty Chief Justices unanimously adopted a joint Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary, which are now more commonly known as the "Beijing Principles". This was a remarkable achievement by our predecessors, and it has left an enduring legacy which should remind us of the tremendous value that these conferences can bring to our judicial systems and therefore also to the global legal order.

    3. Unquestionably, the Beijing Principles remain as relevant today as they were three decades ago. And they will continue to be so because the existence of an independent and impartial judiciary is central to any proper conception of the rule of law.[1] But it is perhaps noteworthy that our predecessors had framed the consensus they reached in these terms:[2]

    It is the conclusion of the Chief Justices and other judges of Asia and Pacific listed below that these represent the minimum standards necessary to be observed in order to maintain the independence and effective functioning of the judiciary. [emphasis added]

    . . .

    +Reproduced with permission of the Singapore Courts: https://www.judiciary.gov. sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/chief-justice-sundaresh-menon--speech-delivered-at-19th-conference-of-chief-justices-of-asia-and-the-pacific.

    *Supreme Court of Singapore.

  3. SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) & ANOR v. JAWATANKUASA FATWA NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS [2025] 7 CLJ 179: CASE COMMENTARY [Read excerpt]
    by Muhammad Izwan Ikhsan[i] Dr Saslina Kamaruddin[ii] [2025] CLJU(A) lxxxvii

  4. [2025] CLJU(A) lxxxvii
    MALAYSIA

    SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) & ANOR v. JAWATANKUASA FATWA NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS [2025] 7 CLJ 179:
    CASE COMMENTARY


    by
    Muhammad Izwan Ikhsan[i]
    Dr Saslina Kamaruddin[ii]

    ABSTRACT

    This commentary examines the landmark decision of the Federal Court in SIS Forum (Malaysia) & Anor v. Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor & Ors, which addressed the constitutional limits of religious authority within Malaysia's dual legal system. This case arose from a fatwa issued in 2014 declaring liberal and pluralist Islamic thought as deviant, and naming SIS Forum (Malaysia) as subject to the fatwa. The appellants challenged the fatwa on constitutional and administrative grounds, contending that it unlawfully applied to a corporate entity and had exceeded the jurisdiction of the State's religious authority. The majority of the Federal Court held that while fatwas, once gazetted, carry legal force, they must remain within the confines of the legislative lists under the Federal Constitution. The apex court also held that corporations cannot profess a religion and hence cannot be subject to Islamic personal law. This case commentary provides an analysis of the Federal Court's reasoning in delineating the boundaries between civil and Shariah jurisdictions; an insight into the enforceability of fatwas; a critical evaluation of the judicial interpretation of "persons professing religion of Islam" and its impacts for corporate bodies; and an exploration of the concept of judicial review. This case commentary also discusses the dissenting opinion which advocates for broader Shariah jurisdiction.

    . . .

    [i] LLB, LLM, Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sabah Branch. Email: izwanikhsan@uitm.edu.my.

    [ii] LLM, PhD in Laws, Faculty of Management and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI), Tanjung Malim, Perak. Email: saslina@fpe.upsi.edu.my.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 870 Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Act 2025 1 August 2025 - -
ACT 869 Parliamentary Service Act 2025 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 868 Malaysian Media Council Act 2025 14 June 2025 [PU(B) 222/2025] - -
ACT 867 Government Service Efficiency Commitment Act 2025 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 866 Online Safety Act 2025 Not Yet In Force - -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1767 Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2025 Not Yet In Force ACT 000
ACT A1766 Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Amendment) Act 2025 10 July 2025 ACT 334
ACT A1765 Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation Fund (Amendment) Act 2025 15 June 2025 [PU(B) 218/2025] ACT 389
ACT A1764 Fire Services (Amendment) Act 2025 1 July 2025 [PU(B) 238/2025] - ss 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18; 1 January 2026 - ss 2, 3, 4, 11, 19, 20 and 21 ACT 341
ACT A1763 Supplementary Supply (2024) Act 2025 15 May 2025  

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 265/2025 Rules of Court (Amendment) 2025 21 August 2025 22 August 2025 PU(A) 205/2012
PU(A) 256/2025 Port (Muar) Rules 2025 18 August 2025 19 August 2025 ORD 70/1952
PU(A) 255/2025 Audit (Amendment of First Schedule) (No. 2) Order 2025 15 August 2025 1 December 2024 ACT 62
PU(A) 254/2025 Penang Port Commission (Scale of Rates Offerry Service Between Pangkalan Sultan Abdul Halim and Pangkalan Raja Tun Uda) By-Laws 2025 14 August 2025 15 August 2025 ACT 140
PU(A) 253/2025 Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No. 23) Order 2025 6 August 2025 7 August 2025 ACT 301

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 331/2025 Appointment of Government Psychiatric Hospital 9 September 2025 10 September 2025 ACT 615
PU(B) 330/2025 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 9 September 2025 10 September 2025 ACT A1693
PU(B) 329/2025 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 9 September 2025 10 September 2025 ACT A1692
PU(B) 328/2025 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 9 September 2025 10 September 2025 ACT A1691
PU(B) 327/2025 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Henry Gurney School 9 September 2025 Appointment - 10 September 2025; Revoked - 29 March 1984 ACT 611

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
AKTA 725 Akta Tenaga Boleh Baharu 2011 PU(A) 251/2025 28 Januari 2019 Jadual
ACT 725 Renewable Energy Act 2011 PU(A) 251/2025 28 January 2019 Schedule
AKTA 615 Akta Kesihatan Mental 2001 AKTA A1693 10 September 2025 [PU(B) 330/2025] Seksyen 11
ACT 615 Mental Health Act 2001 ACT A1693 10 September 2025 [PU(B) 330/2025] Section 11
ACT 593 Criminal Procedure Code (Revised 1999) ACT A1692 10 September 2025 [PU(B) 329/2025] First Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 161/2024 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 5) Order 2024 PU(A) 241/2025 1 August 2025
PU(A) 160/2024 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 5) Order 2024 PU(A) 240/2025 1 August 2025
PU(A) 266/2019 Customs Duties (Goods Under the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand Free Trade Area) Order 2019 PU(A) 182/2025 17 June 2025
PU(A) 69/2025 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Expedited Review) Order 2025 PU(A) 181/2025 15 June 2025
PU(A) 276/2018 Federal Territory (Planning) (Classes of Use of Land and Buildings) (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Rules 2018 PU(A) 175/2025 11 June 2025

Copyright © CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here