Print this page
CLJ Pulse Header
Issue #47/2025
20 November 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

KOK PEEK BOON v. AIA BHD [2025] 10 CLJ 114
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
YUSRIN FAIDZ YUSOFF JC
[SUIT NO: WA-22NCC-858-12-2024]
21 JULY 2025

The court is equipped with a discretionary power to cure procedural defects. Such defects that could be regularised pursuant to O. 41 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 include a defect where the deponent had, through miscommunication, averred a fact regarding an event that has yet to take place.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Irregularity - Affidavit - Application to regularise defect in affidavit in support - Deponent had inserted averments regarding event which had yet to take place ('defect') - Whether defect amounted to procedural irregularity curable under O. 41 r. 4 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Whether defect mere clerical error - Whether deponent breached O. 41 r. 5 of ROC - Whether defect prejudicial to opposing party

APPEAL UPDATES

  1. Shahrizat, Rashid & Lee & Ors v. Elvi Sazali Ja'afar & Ors [2025] CLJU 1342 affirming the High Court case of Elvi Sazali Ja'afar & Ors v. Lim Chai Loy & Ors [2022] CLJU 1033

  2. Xtreme Meridian Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor[2025] CLJU 1536 affirming the High Court case of Xtreme Meridian Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah [2024] CLJU 854

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2025] CLJU 211

DSCAFF ENGINEERING SDN BHD v. CHEEMATRADE SDN BHD & ANOR

Agreement as to payment terms under a contract indicated that time is an essence of the contract. Where time is an essence and it is not complied with, the effect on the agreement is it becomes voidable by virtue of s. 56(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. It follows, a promisor who had failed to make payments as specified under an agreement and when time is an essence of the agreement, then the agreement will become voidable at the option of the promisee. Any indulgence granted by the promisee to the promisor in giving extension of time to make payment does not amount to either creating a collateral agreement nor can it be deemed to be a variance of the payment terms of the agreement.

CONTRACT: Agreement - Breach - Rental agreement - Claim for unpaid rental and return of materials - Breach of payment terms - Plaintiff granted extension of time to defendant to make payment - Whether time essence of contract - Whether agreement voidable at option of plaintiff - Whether extension of time created collateral agreement - Whether claim for return of material feasible - Whether unreturned materials deemed lost - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 56(1), 64

  • For the plaintiffs - Lewis Lim & Justin Ong; M/s Lewis Lim & Min Lee
  • For the defendant - VK Raj & SP Devi; M/s A Rajadurai P Kuppusamy & Co

[2025] CLJU 226

SPADE CAPITAL SDN BHD v. PARAGRENE LAND BERHAD

An amendment to a statement of claim which seek to cure jurisdictional defects after they were exposed by the defendant's defence will result in the defence raised to be ineffective. Such an amendment constitute an improper attempt to improve the plaintiff's case after seeing the defence. While courts generally favour in allowing amendments to determine the real controversy, this principle cannot extend to permitting a party to retrospectively cure fundamental jurisdictional defects. In such circumstances, the aggrieved defendant is entitled to make an application to disallow the amended statement of claim pursuant to O. 20 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment - Statement of claim - Application to disallow amendments to statement of claim- Amended statement of claim filed after defendant raised several procedural defects in original statement of claim - Original statement of claim lacked requirements under Moneylenders Act 1951 - Whether amendments proposed sought seek to cure jurisdictional defects - Whether amendments demonstrated good faith - Whether allowing amendments would cause prejudice beyond mere costs - Whether proposed amendments significantly altered original pleading - Whether requirements under Moneylenders Act 1951 mandatory - Rules of Court 2012, O. 20 r. 4

  • For the plaintiffs - M/s Tiong & Associates
  • For the defendant - M/s Nandrajog

[2025] CLJU 227

LKW PETROLEUM SDN BHD v. LOH POON HOE

1. Under O. 16 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, once a third party has entered appearance, the defendant must apply to the court for directions. The third party may apply to set aside the third party notice if, seven days after he has entered appearance, the defendant fails to apply to the court for directions.

2. A defendant who is seeking for contribution and indemnity against a third party in a claim for recovery of loan debts, must adduce evidence to show nexus between the defendant and the third party that would give rise to the right of the defendant to seek contribution and indemnity against the third party. Failure to adduce such evidence would entitled the third party to set aside the third party notice and statement of claim for lack of reasonable cause of action.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Setting aside - Application for - Setting aside third party notice and statement of claim - Defendant brought third party to contribute and indemnify plaintiff's claim for recovery of loan - Defendant failed to apply to court for direction on third party notice - Third party entered appearance - Whether there was legally recognisable cause of action against third party - Whether there were nexus between defendant and third party - Whether defendants could seek contribution and indemnity against third party

  • For the plaintiffs - Shahabudin Shaik Alaudin, Rosnida Che Ibrahim & Siti Nurazwani Zulkeflee; M/s Shahabudin & Rozima
  • For the defendant - Daphne Goon Siew Lee & Jared Tee Wei Jim M/s SL Goon & Partners

[2025] CLJU 215

NIK MOHD RAMADHAN AB RAHMAN lwn. PP

Penetapan hukuman pemenjaraan dan sebatan minimum bagi kesalahan pemilikan dadah berbahaya di bawah s. 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 menunjukkan keseriusan yang diberikan oleh badan perundangan terhadap kesalahan-kesalahan sedemikian. Justeru, hukuman pemenjaraan yang dijatuhkan melebihi daripada hukuman pemenjaraan minimum tersebut adalah teratur dan tidak terjumlah kepada salah arah oleh hakim bicara.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Kesalahan pemilikan dadah berbahaya - Pertuduhan di bawah s. 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Hukuman minimum - Hukuman pemenjaraan diperintahkan berjalan serentak dan hukuman sebatan rotan dilaksanakan secara berasingan - Sama ada hukuman berat wajar dikenakan - Sama ada kepentingan awam perlu diutamakan - Sama ada hukuman pencegahan wajar diberikan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Mohd Falihin Kamil Mohamed Sazali; T/n Sazali & Lim [Bagi pihak Yayasan Bantuan Guaman, Kebangsaan (YBGK)]
  • Bagi pihak responden - Intan Nor Hilwani Mat Rifin, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang

[2025] CLJU 229

OSMAN KAMIS lwn. PP & SATU LAGI KES

1. Perbuatan tertuduh yang telah melakukan empat kesalahan amang seksual fizikal ke atas mangsa kanak-kanak yang sama menunjukkan bahawa tertuduh adalah pesalah seksual yang berulang, merbahaya dan harus dijauhkan daripada kanak-kanak dan masyarakat untuk suatu tempoh yang panjang khususnya dijauhkan daripada mangsa yang telah mengalami trauma akibat perbuatan tertuduh tersebut. Justeru, demi menjaga kepentingan dan keselamatan awam, hukuman pemenjaraan yang berbentuk pencegahan wajar dikenakan ke atas tertuduh.

2. Hukuman pemenjaraan yang dikenakan ke atas tertuduh bagi empat kesalahan di bawah s. 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 yang dilakukan secara berulang pada tarikh, masa, tempat dan cara perbuatan yang berbeza terhadap mangsa hendaklah dijalankan secara berasingan dan tidak secara serentak.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Hukuman penjara enam tahun penjara bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah s. 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Hukuman diperintahkan berjalan secara berasingan - Pengakuan salah - Kesalahan amang seksual fizikal dilakukan oleh bapa tiri - Kesalahan dilakukan secara berulang pada tarikh, masa, tempat dan cara perbuatan yang berbeza - Sama ada hukuman yang dikenakan terlalu tinggi - Sama ada kesalahan-kesalahan tertuduh harus dianggap sebagai kesalahan yang berbeza - Sama ada hakim bicara terkhilaf apabila memerintahkan hukuman penjara dijalankan secara berasingan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Mohd Hapiz Rajali; T/n Mohd Hapiz Rajali & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Mohd Izham Ali

CLJ 2025 Volume 9 (Part 6)

When issuing an order for removal and detention under the Immigration Act 1959, the relevant authorities must give due consideration to all material circumstances of the individual. This includes, but is not limited to, the individual's status as a refugee as assessed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and their potential status as a minor. Orders made without a full and proper investigation or based on flawed evidence are invalid and cannot justify continued detention. Furthermore, indefinite detention that is not proportionate to the objective of expeditious removal is unlawful.
Noor Kayes Hashim Ullah v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2025] 9 CLJ 867 [FC]

|

CRIMINAL LAW: Habeas corpus - Application for writ of habeas corpus - Appeal - Applicant minor and refugee of Rohingya descent - Applicant possessed registered United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ('UNHCR') issued in Bangladesh - Applicant charged for entering Malaysia without valid passport - Immigration Department issued orders for removal and detention against applicant - UNHCR informed Immigration Department that applicant was minor and confirmed refugee status - Applicant's application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed by High Court - Whether ought to be allowed - Whether applicant's detention in accordance with Immigration Act 1959 - Whether there was transgression of constitutionally permissible limits

IMMIGRATION: Detention - Removal - Refugees - Applicant minor and refugee of Rohingya descent - Applicant possessed registered United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ('UNHCR') issued in Bangladesh - Applicant charged for entering Malaysia without valid passport - Immigration Department issued orders for removal and detention against applicant - Whether Director-General of Immigration took into account relevant considerations when issuing orders of detention and removal - Immigration Act 1959, ss. 6(1)(c), 33(1) & 34(1)

 

Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ
Rhodzariah Bujang FCJ
Hanipah Farikullah FCJ

  • For the appellant - Nik Nasrun Nazmi Nik Mohamad & Mohamad Wafiq Hafie; M/s Habibah Nik & Co
  • For the respondents - Mohd Zain Ibrahim & Rahmath Nisa Segu Alavudin; SFCs

(i) To be awarded compensation for a public body's failure to perform a public duty, a claimant must prove that the loss suffered was a direct and reasonably foreseeable consequence of that failure. A claim for losses based on events or approvals that are contingent on the decisions of a separate, independent body over which the public body has no control cannot be sustained, as the element of causation is broken; (ii) Claimants can only recover for losses that are demonstrably reasonable and directly attributable to the public body's inaction. If a claimant takes on a risk or makes a commercial decision on their own accord, they must bear the consequences of that decision, even if the decision was influenced by the public body's inaction.
Berjaya Land Bhd & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors [2025] 9 CLJ 905 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Compensation - Assessment - Judicial review for failure of public authority to perform and exercise public duty - Federal Court ordered payment of compensation by public authority for losses suffered by applicants and inquiry into compensation be conducted by judge in chambers - Application by applicants for directions as to assessment of compensation at High Court - Assessment of compensation payable - Whether losses, costs and compensation claimed for proven - Quantum of damages - Whether pre-judgment and post-judgment interests ought to be awarded

 

 

Shahnaz Sulaiman J

  • For the applicants - Tey Jun Ren & Siew Suet Mey; M/s JR Tey & Co
  • For the respondents: Kamaruzaman Muhammad Arif & Sofiah Omar; T/n Kamaruzaman Arif & Sofiah

The most important protection to a franchisee in a franchise agreement would be the express term as to the territory or area in which it is allowed to operate, as spelt out under s. 18(2)(a) of the Franchise Agreement 1998. A franchise agreement is not merely a private commercial arrangement between two contracting parties. Instead, it carries with it broader obligations that include the expectation of transparency, ethical business conduct, and equitable treatment of franchisees.
Koperasi Tanjong Keramat Malaysia Bhd (Formerly Known As Koperasi Tanjung Keramat Kota Kinabalu Bhd) v. Permodalan Kelantan Bhd & Anor [2025] 9 CLJ 933 [HC]

CONTRACT: Agreement - Franchise agreement - Agreement between franchisor and franchisee governed by standardised operational and technological framework - Franchisee granted territorial exclusivity - Subsequent grant of franchise to third party within exclusive territory of franchisee - Whether franchisor breached territorial exclusivity provision - Whether franchisor breached statutory prohibition against discriminatory practices - Whether franchisee entitled to terminate agreement - Whether termination valid and lawful - Franchise Act 1998, s. 20

CONTRACT: Termination - Validity - Franchise agreement governed by standardised operational and technological framework - Franchisee granted territorial exclusivity by franchisor - Subsequent grant of franchise to third party within exclusive territory of franchisee - Whether franchisor's failure to uphold territorial exclusivity amounted to fundamental breach of law and fact - Whether undermined franchisee's competitive advantage and vitiated core assurance of market protection - Whether franchisor breached statutory prohibition against discriminatory practices - Whether franchisor's failure to remedy breach pursuant to franchise agreement was 'good cause' for termination - Whether termination valid and lawful - Franchise Act 1998, ss. 20 & 31(2)(b)

 

 

Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC

  • For the plaintiff - Lee Wing Hong; M/s Marcus Tan & Co
  • For the defendants - Mohammad Hazim Mohd Yaacob; M/s Azmi & Assocs

When an entire scheduled land with a building is acquired, including the common property, the individual owner is entitled to compensation for their parcel and a proportional share of the common property's value. The management corporation holds the common property in trust for the owners. If a management corporation does not exist, the compensation for the common property is distributed directly to the flat owners in proportion to their share units. The appropriate valuation method for the common property in such a case is to value the land as if it were vacant, with deductions for demolition and other related costs, rather than using a cost-based approach.
Mah Chin Booi v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [2025] 9 CLJ 952 [HC]

LAND LAW: Acquisition - Compensation - Award - Land reference - Flats, open-air car park bays and vacant land sat on scheduled land - Scheduled land acquired for redevelopment - Acquisition included common property - Land Administrator awarded compensation based on flat value only and not value of scheduled land - Whether applicant entitled to compensation based solely on his flat - Whether compensation included unit share of common property when entire land acquired including common property - Value of applicant's unit share of common property - Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Strata Titles Act 1985, ss. 17B, 57A & Seventh Schedule

 

 

Leong Wai Hong J

  • For the applicant - Kabilan K Mathavan & Lim Woi Kein; M/s WK Lim & Partners
  • For the respondent - Iskandar Zulkarnaen
  • Assessor from the private sector - Zaifunur'ain Zainal Abidin
  • Assessor who is a valuation officer employed by the Government - Mohd Zamri Awang

It is common knowledge as to what alcohol could do to a person's central nervous system. If an accused person had driven his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, one could naturally say that the accused person had also driven his vehicle recklessly or dangerously. Therefore, if doubt exists as to whether the report relied on by the prosecution to prove the accused person's blood contained alcohol which exceeded the prescribed limit was accurate, for an offence under s. 44(1)(b) of the Road Transport Act 1987, the accused may still be charged with an offence under s. 41(1) of the same.
Vethri Vel Yamaplay v. PP [2025] 9 CLJ 983 [HC]

ROAD TRAFFIC: Accident - Collision between two vehicles - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Accident caused deaths and injury to driver and passengers of motorcar - Driver of trailer convicted and sentenced to charges under s. 44(1)(b) of Road Transport Act 1987 ('RTA'), for offence of driving while under influence of alcohol - Whether decision of Magistrates' Court warranted appellate intervention - Whether there was doubt as to actual content of alcohol in blood specimen of driver of trailer - Whether charges ought to be amended to s. 41(1) of RTA, for offence of reckless or dangerous driving

 

 

Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin J

  • For the appellant - Ranjit Singh Sandhu & Ahmed Faazil Rahman; M/s Ranjit Singh Sandhu & Co
  • For the respondent - Mohd Waffy Ismail; DPP

(i) A successful writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case, which challenges procedural irregularities in a person's detention under public law, does not automatically serve as conclusive proof for a civil claim of false imprisonment. For a civil claim, the plaintiff must separately prove that his detention was unlawful due to a lack or excess of jurisdiction by the detaining authority; (ii) In cases involving statutory detention, while an initial arrest may be deemed lawful if it is based on reasonable suspicion and follows the prescribed legal procedures, the subsequent detention can be rendered unlawful if the detaining authority fails to strictly adhere to all statutory requirements. For instance, if a specific law mandates that a Minister must consider reports from two separate individuals before issuing a detention order, the failure to do so is a fatal flaw that invalidates the detention.
Vinod Kumar Verappan v. D/Kpl Kerry Yan & Ors [2025] 9 CLJ 1007 [HC]

| | | |

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Wrongful arrest and unlawful detention - Claimant arrested under s. 3(1) of Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 and detained under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Claimant successful in habeas corpus application - Whether habeas corpus order established conclusive evidence that claimant was unlawfully detained

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Claim for - Claim for damages in civil court arising out of writ of habeas corpus issued by criminal court - Distinction between public and private laws - Claimant arrested under s. 3(1) of Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 and detained under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Claimant successful in habeas corpus application - Whether habeas corpus order established conclusive evidence that claimant was unlawfully detained - Whether claimant lawfully arrested and lawfully detained - Whether claimant entitled to damages sought

DAMAGES: Action for - Claim for general, special exemplary and aggravated damages - Claimant arrested under s. 3(1) of Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 and detained under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Claimant successful in habeas corpus application - Whether habeas corpus order established conclusive evidence that claimant was unlawfully detained - Whether claimant lawfully arrested and lawfully detained - Whether claimant entitled to damages sought

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction - Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, ss. 3(1) & 6(1) - Arrest and detention of person for purpose of investigation if officer has reason to believe that there were grounds to justify detention - When reasonable suspicion arose

WORDS & PHRASES: 'reasonably suspects' - Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983, s. 3(1) - Arrest and detention of person for purpose of investigation if officer has reason to believe that there were grounds to justify detention - When reasonable suspicion arose

WORDS & PHRASES: 'reasons to believe there are grounds which could justify his detention' - Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, s. 3(1) - Arrest and detention of person for purpose of investigation if officer has reason to believe that there were grounds to justify detention - When reasonable suspicion arose

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J

  • For the plaintiff - Muhammad Yazid Mohamad Salim, Danny Soong Hou Ming, Lee Guo Wen & Muhammad Faiz Mohd Zamros; M/s Yazid Tishondra
  • For the defendants - Nur Ezdiani Roleb; SFC & Afiq Nazrin Zaharinan; FC

 

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. FROM DISCLOSURE TO DISCIPLINE: ENFORCING RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2016 AND BURSA MMLR [Read excerpt]
    by Chong Wai Kuan* [2025] CLJU(A) cvi

    2. [2025] CLJU(A) cvi
    MALAYSIA

    FROM DISCLOSURE TO DISCIPLINE: ENFORCING RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2016 AND BURSA MMLR

    by
    Chong Wai Kuan*

    ABSTRACT

    Related party transactions ('RPTs') remain one of the most contentious corporate governance issues in Malaysia, particularly within the context of concentrated ownership structures and family-controlled firms. While not inherently improper, RPTs become problematic when used as vehicles for asset tunnelling, self-dealing, or abusive control. This article critically analyses the Malaysian legal framework governing RPTs under the Companies Act 2016, Bursa Malaysia's Listing Requirements, and related judicial interpretation. Through doctrinal examination and detailed case analysis, including Protasco Bhd v. PT Anglo Slavic Utama & Ors, Chan Weng Fui v. Pan Malaysia Capital Bhd & Ors, this paper reveals the underlying structural weaknesses that continue to undermine regulatory intentions. It contends that current statutory safeguards and corporate practices do not adequately restrain abuse by controlling shareholders or protect minority interests. This article further engages with policy theories such as agency theory and explores comparative reforms from Singapore and the UK. Ultimately, it argues for a more substantive, enforcement-driven approach, one that elevates transparency, mandates independent oversight, and restores market integrity.

    . . .

    *Senior Lecturer at Tunku Abdul Rahman University of Management and Technology (TAR UMT); LLB (University of London); CLP (University of Malaya); LLM (University of Warwick); member of the Malaysian Association of Company Secretaries; member of Inns of Court.

  2. THE ROLE OF EXPERT WITNESSES IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN MALAYSIA* [Read excerpt]
    by Genevieve Vanniasingham** [2025] CLJU(A) cvii

    3. [2025] CLJU(A) cvii
    MALAYSIA

    THE ROLE OF EXPERT WITNESSES IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN MALAYSIA*

    by
    Genevieve Vanniasingham**

    ABSTRACT

    Providing expert medical opinion for the purposes of a medical negligence claim is a weighty responsibility. In certain specialties, the culture of "naming and shaming" peers makes it difficult to secure such opinions, which in turn impacts access to justice for litigants as well as for the defence.

    This article examines the central role of expert testimony in medical negligence claims, addressing the statutory framework under the Evidence Act 1950, the Rules of Court 2012, and relevant Malaysian Medical Council guidelines. The article highlights key issues, including the admissibility and form of expert reports, the assessment of expert evidence, the need to guard against hindsight and outcome bias, and the importance of independence and objectivity in expert opinions.

    Ultimately, the integrity of the medicolegal process depends on experts providing reasoned, evidence-based, and unbiased opinions that assist the court in achieving just outcomes. Equally, counsel must be able to critically engage with their experts' reasoning to ensure the court is properly guided in navigating complex medical evidence.

    . . .

    *Copyright © 2025 Messrs Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership.

    **LLB (Hons) (Reading), LLM (Lond) Barrister-at-Law (Middle Temple), Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya, Associate at Messrs Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership.

  3. 'THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE'
    SPEECH GIVEN AT THE INAUGURAL SINGAPORE-FRANCE JUDICIAL ROUNDTABLE         [Read excerpt]
    by Justice Goh Yihan* [2025] CLJU(A) cviii

    4. [2025] CLJU(A) cviii
    SINGAPORE

    'THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE'

    SPEECH GIVEN AT THE INAUGURAL SINGAPORE-FRANCE JUDICIAL ROUNDTABLE

    by
    Justice Goh Yihan*

    The Honourable First President of the Court of Cassation, Mr Christophe Soulard
    The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
    President of Chamber, Sandrine Zientara
    Judge Isabelle Goanvic
    Judge Referee Caroline Azar
    Colleagues

    Introduction

    1. In this presentation, I will touch on the legal implications of some recent developments in AI from a common law perspective, with a focus on relevant Singapore developments.

    2. More specifically, I will cover three capabilities that many advanced AI systems can be said to possess. In short, these are AI systems' capabilities to learn, to create, and to decide.

    AI's capability to learn

    3. I turn first to consider the capacity of some AI systems to "learn". Broadly speaking, many of today's AI systems are considered machine learning systems. In order to understand the significance of machine learning systems, it is useful to consider the distinction between rules-based AI systems and machine learning systems.

    4. Rules-based AI systems are more basic. It takes a human user's input, and then applies predetermined rules to that input, so as to make decisions or recommendations. One example that is used in law is expert systems. For instance, Singapore's Legal Aid Bureau has a chatbot, the Divorce Assets Informative Division Estimator (or "Divorce AIDE"), which can give layman users an estimate of "how much [they] can potentially receive as [their] share of the matrimonial assets post-divorce".[1]

    . . .

    +Reproduced with permission of the Singapore Courts: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/chief-justice-sundaresh-menon-opening-address-at-the-inaugural-singapore-france-judicial-roundtable.

    *Supreme Court of Singapore.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 871 Fees (Pengkalan Kubor Ferry) (Validation) Act 2025 17 October 2025 - -
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 - -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1777 Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Act 2025 Not Yet In Force ACT 711
ACT A1776 Energy Commission (Amendment) Act 2025 Not Yet In Force ACT 610
ACT A1775 Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act 2025 Not Yet In Force ACT 447
ACT A1774 Poisons (Amendment) Act 2025 Not Yet In Force ACT 366
ACT A1773 Street, Drainage and Building (Amendment) Act 2025 Not Yet In Force ACT 133

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 371/2025 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (East Klang Valley Express Way) Order 2025 23 October 2025 25 October 2025 ACT 306
PU(A) 370/2025 Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) (Remission of Tax and Stamp Duty) (Perumahan Rakyat 1Malaysia Corporation) Order 2025 23 October 2025 24 October 2025 ACT 96
PU(A) 369/2025 Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 11) Order 2025 17 October 2025 20 October 2025 PU(A) 401/1989
PU(A) 368/2025 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 5) Order 2025 15 October 2025 16 October 2025 to 22 October 2025 ACT 723
PU(A) 367/2025 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 6) Order 2025 15 October 2025 16 October 2025 to 22 October 2025 ACT 723

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 403/2025 Notice Under Section 70 14 November 2025 15 November 2025 ACT 333
PU(B) 402/2025 Notification of Free Zones (Amendment of First Schedule) (No. 4) 2025 13 November 2025 14 November 2025 ACT 438
PU(B) 401/2025 Notification of Free Zones 13 November 2025 14 November 2025 ACT 438
PU(B) 400/2025 Appointment of Authorized Officers 13 November 2025 14 November 2025 ACT 506
PU(B) 399/2025 Notification of Approval of Industry Code of Practice 13 November 2025 14 November 2025 ACT 514

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
ACT 438 Free Zones Act 1990 PU(B) 402/2025 14 November 2025 First Schedule
AKTA 438 Akta Zon Bebas 1990 PU(B) 402/2025 14 November 2025 Jadual Pertama
ACT 746 Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ACT A1738 1 January 2026 [PU(B) 369/2025] Section 4, 12, 16, 19, 21, 23, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 40
AKTA 746 Akta Pembayaran Dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan 2012 AKTA A1738 1 Januari 2026 [PU(B) 369/2025] Seksyen 4, 12, 16, 19, 21, 23, 32, 33, 34, 39 dan 40
ACT 646 Arbitration Act 2005 ACT A1737 1 January 2026 [PU(B) 368/2025] Sections 2, 3, 9, 9A, 13, 17, 33, 38, 46A - 46I and 48

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 405/2010 Road Transport (Fee and Charge For Erecting Structures For Billboard on Federal Road) Rules 2010 PU(A) 319/2025 1 September 2025
PU(A) 365/2023 Federal Constitution (Review of Special Grant Under Article 112d) (State of Sarawak) Order 2023 PU(A) 272/2025 28 August 2025
PU(A) 312/1998 Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Conditions on Supervision of Drug Dependants Who Volunteer For Treatment and Rehabilitation) Rules 1998 PU(A) 264/2025 22 August 2025
PU(A) 310/1998 Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Forms) Rules 1998 PU(A) 263/2025 22 August 2025
PU(A) 364/2023 Federal Constitution (Review of Special Grant Under Article 112D) (State of Sabah) Order 2023 PU(A) 271/2025 28 August 2025

Copyright © CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here