| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #1/2026
01 January 2026
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New This Week
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE SPOTLIGHTS
MUHAMMAD MALIKI ABDUL HALIM v. (i) Section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act 1972 ('AFA') imposes a mandatory requirement that an accused soldier, whose charge is to be tried by a Court-Martial, shall be remanded for the trial. This requirement is reinforced by the need for strict compliance with laws concerning military discipline and is further supported by r. 16(1) of the Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 ('AFRP'), which empowers the authority to place the accused under close arrest pending trial unless otherwise directed; (ii) There is no legal necessity under s. 96(3) of the AFA for the authority to issue an express remand order for detention pending trial by Court-Martial. The unambiguous wording of the provision itself authorises or mandates the remand. ARMED FORCES: Court-Martial - Detention - Soldier's urine tested positive for drugs - Detention of soldier by military authorities pending investigation and trial before Court-Martial - Whether detention lawful - Whether express remand order required - Armed Forces Act 1972, ss. 51 & 96(3) - Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, rr. 13, 14 & 16(1) APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 1 (Part 1) (i) A person who is not an advocate and solicitor, who performs acts and services which includes legal advice and legal compliance, falls within the prohibition envisaged by s. 37 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, designed to impose restrictions upon an 'unauthorised person' performing services that only an advocate and solicitor can perform; (ii) An arrangement entered into by an individual where he would receive a consultancy fee of half of the fees recovered from an advocate and solicitor, in exchange for him appointing the advocate and solicitor to act as counsel for a company, falls under the definition of 'touting', which is prohibited by r. 51 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. As a matter of public policy, such practices ought to be prohibited as falling afoul of s. 24 of the Contracts Act 1950. CONTRACT | LEGAL PROFESSION
CONTRACT: Agreement - Illegality - Appointment of respondent as consultant in debt recovery dispute - Respondent recommended appellant be appointed as counsel for company - Whether acts and services performed by respondent within description of person engaging in legal practice - Claim for sharing of 10% retained by appellant from sum paid in settlement of suit - Whether claim ran foul of ss. 37 and 40 of Legal Profession Act 1976 - Whether arrangement of respondent receiving 'consultancy fee' of half of fees recovered from appellant fell under definition of touting - Whether prohibited by r. 51 of Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 - Whether claim ran foul of s. 24 of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether agreement illegal and void LEGAL PROFESSION: Practice of law - Unauthorised person - Appointment of person who is not qualified as advocate and solicitor as consultant in debt recovery dispute - Whether acts and services performed within description of person engaging in legal practice - Whether fell within prohibition envisaged by s. 37 of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') - Whether only actions of fully paid 'in-house' counsel exempted under s. 38(1)(d) of LPA
S Nantha Balan JCA
The Investigation Authority's ('IA') long-standing practice of disclosing the details, breakdown and computation of the normal value and dumping margin carries no legal force, as no provision under the WTO Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1 requires such disclosure. Consequently, a claim of legitimate expectation cannot be based merely on the IA's past practices but must rest on a clear and specific promise or undertaking made to the affected party. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against judgment of High Court - High Court allowed judicial review application to quash decision of Minister of Finance and recommendation by Minister of International Trade and Industry - Singaporean exporter ('exporter') of steel concrete reinforcing bars imposed with anti-dumping duties - Whether High Court's decision warranted appellate intervention - Whether past practices of Trade Practices Section of Ministry of International Trade and Industry had force of law - Whether there was breach of principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation of exporter - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(1) & (2)
Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA
(i) Section 30(4) of the Income Tax Act 1967 is the sole lex specialis specifically addressing and setting the rule on the appropriate tax treatment as to debt ('any sum payable, rent payable or expense incurred of the kind') incurred 'prior to the relevant period' which later during the 'relevant period' the debt is released. Its plain and vivid purpose is to govern the instance of waiver or release of debt so as to avoid duality or redundancy of collection. The provision remains relevant and applicable for the court to identify the proper tax treatment in the instance of a waiver of debt; (ii) It is a plain and immutable rule that the Revenue is not allowed to impose redundant tax so as to enable the Revenue to make a collection that goes beyond the actual fiat benefit that is enjoyed by the taxpayer. REVENUE LAW
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Deductibility - Whether taxpayer had been fully taxed on loan amount by not deducting loan debt as deductible operating expense during preceding year of assessment before loan debt eventually waived - Whether loan debts waived during relevant year of assessment treated as taxable income - Applicability of s. 30(4) of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') - Interpretation of - Whether lex generalis in ss. 4 and 22 of ITA applicable - Whether categorisation of loan debt carried material impact against tax treatment - Whether Revenue entitled to impose second tax collection against waived debt - Whether Revenue's notices for additional assessments and penalties unlawful and invalid
S Nantha Balan JCA
A police officer's arrest and detention of an individual is deemed unlawful and engages the vicarious liability of the Government if the officer's conduct is based on an afterthought or contrived justification, especially where the initial purpose of police action was different, and is carried out with callous disregard for the arrested person's constitutional right to liberty under art. 5 of the Federal Constitution. TORT | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
TORT: Unlawful detention - Damages - Claim for - Claimant Indian national - Claimant arrived in Malaysia before country went into lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic - Claimant stranded in Malaysia following imposition of Movement Control Order - Claimant arrested by police officer and brought before Magistrates' Court for offence of overstaying in Malaysia beyond validity period of social visit pass - Claimant detained for one month - Whether there was unlawful detention TORT: Liability - Vicarious liability - Claimant Indian national - Claimant arrived in Malaysia before country went into lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic - Claimant stranded in Malaysia following imposition of Movement Control Order - Claimant arrested by police officer and brought before Magistrates' Court for offence of overstaying in Malaysia beyond validity period of social visit pass - Claimant detained for one month - Whether Government of Malaysia vicariously liable for acts of police officer CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to life and liberty - Claimant Indian national - Claimant arrived in Malaysia before country went into lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic - Claimant stranded in Malaysia following imposition of Movement Control Order - Claimant arrested by police officer and brought before Magistrates' Court for offence of overstaying in Malaysia beyond validity period of social visit pass - Claimant detained for one month - Whether there was disregard for arrested person's constitutional right to liberty - Federal Constitution, art. 5
Supang Lian JCA
Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not, in express terms or by necessary implication, stipulate that the investigating officer ('IO') for the case must personally attend and present the application for remand. The absence of the IO at the hearing does not compromise the integrity of the process or disadvantage the accused. The accused is still protected by the statutory and constitutional safeguards embedded in the law, and their rights are not diminished due to the IO's physical absence. To insist that only the IO directly assigned to the case may conduct such proceedings would be impractical, unduly burdensome, and can disrupt the smooth administration of criminal justice. Such a rigid interpretation would impair the operational efficiency of the police force and ultimately hinder the investigative process. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Remand - Revision - Application for - Non-attendance of investigating officer - Whether invalidated or undermined fairness of remand proceedings - Whether physical presence of investigating officer mandatory at every remand application - Whether remand order consistent with provisions of ss. 110(3) and 117(1) of Criminal Procedure Code
Azman Abdullah JCA
A concession holder of a highway, who is authorised to collect tolls, owes highway users (i) a statutory duty, under s. 5 of the Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, to maintain the highway in good repair and condition according to sound engineering practices; and (ii) a common law duty of care to maintain the highway in good repair and condition, as harm is reasonably foreseeable and there is proximity between the concession holder and the users. This common law duty of care to maintain and repair the highway is non-delegable. Even if the concession holder delegates the maintenance duty to a contractor, the concession holder remains liable for the contractor's negligence in performing that maintenance function that results in injury or damage to highway users. TORT
TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Fatal accident caused by object on highway - Death of motorcyclist - Liability of highway concessionaire - Duty to maintain highway in good repair and condition - Whether concessionaire and maintenance contractor negligent in maintaining highway - Whether concessionaire had statutory duty and common law duty of care - Whether measures taken by concessionaire sufficient to discharge duty - Whether concessionaire could avoid liability by delegating maintenance duty to contractor - Whether duty of care non-delegable - Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, s. 5 TORT: Negligence - Damages - Claim - Fatal accident caused by object on highway - Death of motorcyclist - Liability of highway concessionaire - Duty to maintain highway in good repair and condition - Whether concessionaire and maintenance contractor negligent in maintaining highway - Quantum of damages
Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim JCA (Civil Appeal No: A-04(NCvC)(W)-444-10-2023)
A trustee must always act honestly, prudently, and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. Even if the trust deed grants the trustee the power to sell trust properties to raise funds, that power is not unfettered. The trustee must not enter into any agreement or scheme with dubious terms that could harm the beneficiaries, as they owe a strict fiduciary duty to protect the trust and its beneficiaries. TRUSTS
TRUSTS: Duties - Fiduciary duty - Breach of - Trustee appointed property agent to sell trust properties on dubious terms and conditions - Trustee agreed to pay property agent massive amount as 'upgrade and renovation costs' - Trustee allowed property agent to claim commission as much as 3% of full purchase price of trust properties - Trustee ignored queries from beneficiaries regarding sale of trust properties - Whether trustee acted with serious lack of probity - Whether trustee breached fiduciary duties to beneficiaries - Whether court order allowing trustee to sell trust properties ought to be set aside
Gan Techiong JC
(i) Execution proceedings are limited to carrying out court orders and do not have the substantive jurisdiction to consider applications for intervention or joinder of parties. The authority to add parties as co-defendants under O. 15 r. 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 can only be exercised by the court handling the main proceedings, not the execution proceedings, which are solely concerned with enforcement procedures; (ii) Allowing post judgment intervention would undermine the fundamental principle of finality in litigation. Courts must maintain the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that judgments, once entered, can be enforced without endless challenges from parties who failed to participate in the original proceedings. The courts should not permit tactics that indefinitely postpone satisfaction of valid judgments. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Intervention - Proposed intervener - Application to intervene in execution proceedings - Whether intervention application procedurally proper - Whether ought to be filed in execution proceedings or original civil court - Whether proposed intervener had legal interests or mere commercial interests - Failure to comply with timing requirements under O. 47 r. 1 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether fundamental procedural irregularities fatal - Whether there was abuse of court process - Whether application dismissed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay - Stay of execution - Application for - Special circumstances - Whether arose - Whether fundamental procedural irregularities fatal - Whether there was abuse of court process - Whether sufficient grounds established for staying execution - Rules of Court 2012, O. 47 r. 1
Arziah Mohamed Apandi JC
In cases where liability for severe, life-altering injuries (such as multiple amputations) resulting from medical negligence by public hospital personnel is conceded, the court may quantify damages to provide the injured party with comprehensive compensation encompassing: (i) non-duplicative general damages for the specific physical injuries and associated mental distress; and (ii) special damages covering all necessary future costs for life-long rehabilitation, including advanced prosthetics, specialised equipment, modifications for independent living, and temporary caregiver assistance, all calculated to restore the claimant as closely as possible to his pre-injury condition. TORT
TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Damages - Assessment - Claimant healthy teenager - Claimant admitted to Government hospital for severe scrotal infection - Claimant given inconsistent diagnoses and treated with multiple unnecessary medications - Claimant discharged but later collapsed at home and re-admitted - Inotropes mistakenly administered through peripheral vein in hand instead of central line in neck - Administration of inotropes caused gangrene, leading to series of amputations - Quantum of damages to be awarded
Su Tiang Joo J
(i) When a statutory provision provides for a penalty using the word 'and', ie, imprisonment 'and' a fine, this conjunction does not mandate that both penalties must be imposed. The court retains the discretion to impose either one, provided that the imposed penalty is within the statutory maximum limit; (ii) Non-binding sentencing guidelines and calculators are merely assistive tools, and their non-application does not invalidate a sentence, as they do not fetter the court's discretion to determine an appropriate sentence. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Sentence - Appeal by prosecution - Adequacy of sentence imposed by Sessions Court - Accused charged for offence under s. 37(1) of Wild Life Protection Ordinance, 1998 (Chapter 26) - Possession of 531 marine turtle eggs without valid written permission from Controller of Wild Life - Accused found guilty, convicted for offence and sentenced to fine of RM6,372 in default six months' imprisonment - Whether sentence adequate - Whether Sessions Court Judge ought to apply Sarawak's Wildlife Crime Sentencing Guideline and Wildlife Crime Sentencing Calculator for purpose of sentencing accused
Faridz Gohim Abdullah JC
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|