New This Week

• Case Spotlights

  1. DR GEOFFREY ALAN WILLIAMS v. DR TIKFU GEE & ANOR [2026] 2 CLJ 207

• Appeal Updates

  1. Appeal Updates

• Latest Cases

  1. Legal Network Series

  2. CLJ 2026 Volume 2 (Part 1)

• Articles

  1. LNS Article(s)

• Legislation Highlights

  1. Principal Acts

  2. Amending Acts

  3. PU(A)

  4. PU(B)

  5. Legislation Alert

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

DR GEOFFREY ALAN WILLIAMS v. DR TIKFU GEE & ANOR [2026] 2 CLJ 207
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
AZIMAH OMAR JCA
NOORIN BADARUDDIN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(IM)-458-08-2023]
23 OCTOBER 2025

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Disciplinary proceedings - Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC') - Allegations of medical misconduct in treatment of patient - Complainant lodged complaint with MMC - MMC concluded that there was no case to be answered and dismissed complaint and charges - Appeal by complainant against MMC's decision - Whether failed complainant had right to appeal - Whether complainant's appeal competent - Whether complainant 'aggrieved person' - Medical Act 1971, s. 31(1)

APPEAL UPDATES

1. Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd v. Setiakon Builders Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2025] CLJU 2935 overruling in part the High Court case of Mayfair Ventures Sdn Bhd v. Setiakon Builders Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 108

2. Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang v. Sagamuda Civil Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 3293 overruling the High Court case of Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang v. Sagamuda Civil Sdn Bhd [2024] CLJU 765

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

CLJ 2026 Volume 2 (Part 1)

Section 143(4) of the National Land Code ('NLC') provides that the decision of the State Director or the Land Administrator, as the case may be, shall be notified by the Land Administrator to each of the co-proprietors. The notification shall be served on the co-proprietors in accordance with s. 431 of the NLC, which necessarily means that it must be in writing and it must be an official documentary communication under the hand of the authority such that it conforms with the requirements of the NLC. Hence, the phrase 'communicated to him', in s. 418 of the NLC must be via official correspondence from the Land Administrator.
Lee Kean Choon v. Khoo San & Ors [2026] 2 CLJ 1 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(i) The granting of leave by a Syariah Court to issue a notice to show cause in contempt proceedings is not a judicially reviewable decision under O. 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, as it is merely an initial, procedural step that does not alter the applicant's rights or obligations or meet the threshold of a final, appealable decision; (ii) A judicial review application that fundamentally constitutes an 'incompetency challenge' must be initiated through an application for leave at the Federal Court under art. 4(4) of the Federal Constitution, and not by filing a judicial review at the High Court. Failure to follow this proper procedure results in a lack of jurisdiction for the High Court to entertain the matter.
Hisham Halim v. Maya Ahmad Fuaad & Ors [2026] 2 CLJ 29 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Pursuant to the case of Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v. Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd, once a breach and a valid clause pertaining to liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') are proven, the burden shifts to the defaulting party to prove that the LAD amount imposed was unreasonable or excessive. In discharging this burden, the defaulting party cannot simply rely on the personal opinion of a witness, regarding the excessiveness of the LAD amount.
Kementerian Pertahanan Malaysia & Anor v. SME Ordnance Sdn Bhd [2026] 2 CLJ 53 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(i) Once a State Authority, under s. 3 of the Local Government Act 1976 ('LGA'), gazettes an area as a Local Authority area, the relevant Local Authority will have jurisdiction over that entire area, unless any part of it is expressly excluded. Any dispute concerning the status of land within that gazetted area - whether the land is private or a State land - will not diminish or negate the Local Authority's responsibility or its statutory obligations under s. 101 of the LGA in respect of that land; (ii) Beach falls within the definition of 'public place' and 'street' as mentioned in s. 2 of the LGA. Consequently, the application of s. 101 of the LGA will extend to trees situated on a private land, provided that the land is a land where the public has a right of way, and the trees could pose a danger to public safety; (iii) A breach of statutory duty by a Local Authority is established once it is shown that the same has failed to perform any of its statutory obligations under s. 101 of the LGA. In such circumstances, there is no requirement to consider whether the Local Authority has exercised reasonable care.
Yong Shui Tian v. Majlis Perbandaran Langkawi Bandaraya Pelancongan [2026] 2 CLJ 66 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

In an interpleader application, the power to determine disputes summarily between the claimants would be applicable if, and only if, there are no existing proceedings between the claimants that would be determinative of the substantive questions of law and disputes between them. Order 17 of the Rules of Court 2012 is intended to provide relief to a party who is facing two or more claimants for a property that he is holding. It is certainly not a rule intended to usurp proceedings in other courts between those parties who are aptly referred to in O. 17 as 'claimants'.
CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd v. Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia & Ors [2026] 2 CLJ 97 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(i) An amended originating summons ('OS') that incorporates relevant legal provisions, which were previously omitted and thus constituted a fundamental defect, is subject to the mandatory requirements for amending writs under O. 20 rr. 5 and 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'). Failure to obtain the mandatory leave of court to file such an amended OS, especially when done tactically after the opposing party has filed a striking out application challenging the original OS's legal sufficiency, constitutes a fundamental procedural flaw that is not curable by O. 1A and O. 2 r. 1 of the ROC. Such amended OS is liable to be struck out; (ii) When a termination notice is defective, the landlord's right to terminate does not automatically override a mandatory contractual right of the tenant to renew the tenancy for a further term, conditional upon due notice. In such a case, the tenant's timely notice to extend based on the mandatory renewal clause must be upheld, leading to the renewal of the tenancy agreement.
KW Keat Wei Motor Sdn Bhd v. HCS Realty Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2026] 2 CLJ 110 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The overall interests and justice are the paramount considerations for a judge deciding whether to grant a stay of proceedings for a suit pending the outcome of another suit. If there is no risk of prejudice or injustice to the parties and no special circumstances and compelling reasons arises for an originating summons to be stayed pending the full and final disposal of an action in another court, then a stay application ought to be dismissed. An application for a stay of proceedings requires especially compelling justification in a case qualifying for urgent judicial decision.
Petroleum Sarawak Bhd v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) [2026] 2 CLJ 129 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(i) The failure to produce a valid certificate under s. 43(4) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 for intercepted communications, such as video or audio recordings, constitutes a substantive legal defect, rendering the recordings inadmissible as evidence. Without the certificate, any critical evidence derived from the intercepted material, establishing actus reus or mens rea, must be excluded, which can fatally undermine the prosecution's case; (ii) The investigating officer is required to maintain independence and impartiality; an investigating officer who is an active participant in the planning and execution of the entrapment operation compromises the fairness of the investigation and the reliability of the prosecution's case.
Zaidi Dali v. PP & Other Appeals [2026] 2 CLJ 144 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

1. FETTERS, FORMALISTS, AND FAIRNESS: THE TRIPARTITE STRUGGLE IN MALAYSIAN DIRECTOR REMOVAL LAW UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2016 ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Chong Wai Kuan* [2026] CLJU(A) xiii

[2026] CLJU(A) xiii
MALAYSIA
---
FETTERS, FORMALISTS, AND FAIRNESS:
THE TRIPARTITE STRUGGLE IN MALAYSIAN DIRECTOR REMOVAL LAW UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2016

by
Chong Wai Kuan*
ABSTRACT
The removal of company directors is a legal area where foundational principles of corporate law, governance, procedure, and equity intersect and often conflict. This article contends that Malaysian jurisprudence under the Companies Act 2016 is shaped by a tripartite struggle between three often-conflicting imperatives: the shareholder's unfettered right of removal, a formalist insistence on procedural integrity, and the equitable demand for substantive fairness. Through critical analysis of three seminal cases Low Thiam Hoe & Anor v. Sri Serdang Sdn Bhd & Ors, Ng Kae Jeng v. Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors (Companies Commission of Malaysia, intervener) and Gopala Krishnan Chettiar Muthu v. Sealand Marine Inspection and Testing (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor, this article explores the evolving jurisprudential landscape. It examines how Malaysian courts have navigated the tension between affirming the shareholder's power of removal and imposing formalist constraints that require strict compliance with statutory and constitutional processes. It further explores how the principle of fairness, primarily expressed through the oppression remedy, functions as a judicial safeguard against removals that, while procedurally valid, constitute an abuse of majority power in quasi-partnership contexts. This article interrogates whether section 206(1) of the Companies Act 2016 prioritises constitutional autonomy over statutory supremacy. It concludes that Malaysian law has evolved towards a context-sensitive equilibrium, ensuring that shareholder democracy is both potent and principled, and protected from managerial entrenchment and majority oppression, which offers a compelling model for Commonwealth jurisdictions facing similar corporate governance dilemmas.
. . .

2. 'THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN JUSTICE SYSTEMS: A VISION OF ACCESSIBLE AND COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE'
   SESSION 3 OF SEJONG INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL CONFERENCE (JUSTICE IN THE AGE OF AI: WHEN LAW MEETS TECHNOLOGY)^{+ [Read excerpt]}
   by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon* [2026] CLJU(A) xiv

[2026] CLJU(A) xiv

SINGAPORE

---

'THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN JUSTICE SYSTEMS: A VISION OF ACCESSIBLE AND COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE'

SESSION 3 OF SEJONG INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL CONFERENCE (JUSTICE IN THE AGE OF AI: WHEN LAW MEETS TECHNOLOGY)⁺

by
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This paper discusses two global trends that have intensified over the past decade, both of which have profound implications for our justice systems. The first is the challenge of access to justice. The size and scale of the ever widening justice gap have reached such alarming proportions that it should be acknowledged as a crisis that demands new and innovative solutions. The second trend relates to the rapid and dramatic technological advancements that we have witnessed, most notably in the emergence of generative artificial intelligence ("Gen AI") and the remarkable growth of its capabilities and sophistication. While Gen AI is not perfect and has some serious limitations, it is here to stay and courts need to be thinking proactively about how, rather than whether, they can incorporate Gen AI into their workflows.

2. Against that backdrop, the central thesis of this paper is that courts should harness the transformative potential of Gen AI to enhance access to justice. This should be seen as an essential step given the sheer size and scale of the global justice deficit. In particular, courts should take a more active role in leveraging on Gen AI to provide practical assistance to litigants who are not legally represented (referred to in this paper as self-represented persons or "SRPs"), in ways that were previously unimaginable, so that SRPs can navigate our courts more easily and effectively to obtain justice. If we do this in a measured and thoughtful manner, it will help us advance our shared mission of securing and maintaining public trust and confidence in our justice systems.

. . .

+Reproduced with permission of the Singapore Courts: https://www.judiciary. gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/chief-justice-sundaresh-menon---the-role-of-technology-in-justice-systems--a-vision-of-accessible-and-collaborative-justice.

*Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The author is grateful to Assistant Registrars Ong Kye Jing and Bryan Ching for their assistance in the research for and preparation of this paper.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert