CASE SPOTLIGHTS
SANTOSHKUMAR SUKUMARAN v. PP [2026] 4 CLJ 529
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AZMAN ABDULLAH JCA
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JCA
NADZARIN WOK NORDIN JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-05(SH)-497-10-2024]
5 FEBRUARY 2026
The prosecution has a duty to offer all material witnesses to the defence, regardless of its own assessment of that witness's utility or the perceived strength of the accused's case. It is the sole right of the accused – not the prosecution – to determine which witnesses are material to their defence and necessary to raise a reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot pre-emptively filter evidence based on its own opinion of relevance; the credibility and weight of the defence's evidence are matters strictly for the court to adjudicate.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs - Accused convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping - Prosecution's failure to offer other arrestees as witnesses to defence - Whether prejudicial to preparation of defence - Whether prosecution had duty to determine utility of witnesses for defence - Whether there was serious miscarriage of justice - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)
EVIDENCE: Witnesses - Duty of prosecution - Accused found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs - Accused convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping - Prosecution's failure to offer other arrestees as witnesses to defence - Prosecution formed opinion on relevance of witnesses to defence case - Whether such duty rested with prosecution - Whether accused deprived of fair trial
APPEAL UPDATES
-
SKN Land & Development Sdn Bhd v. Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd; Mudajaya Corporation Bhd & Ors (Interveners) & Another Appeal [2026] CLJU 85 affirming the High Court case of SKN Land & Development Sdn Bhd v. Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation); Mudajaya Corporation Bhd & Ors (Interveners) [Company (Liquidation) No: WA-28NCC-1070-11/2018; Company (Post Liquidation) No: WA-28PW-527-10/2021]
-
Pembinaan Lercast Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Chek Sam Salleh [2026] CLJU 330 overruling the High Court case of Chek Sam Salleh v. Pembinaan Lercast Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] CLJU 2511
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2026] CLJU 14
|
QUECK HAN TIONG v. CHIA CHIN KOON & ANOR
Beneficial interest does not pass to a purchaser who has not fully settled the purchase price. It follows, a purchaser cannot be invested with beneficial ownership of shares when he did not pay for them. Non-payment for transfer of shares amounts to prima facie evidence of total failure of consideration. In such circumstances, the cause of action lies in restitution and unjust enrichment.
COMPANY LAW: Shares - Return of shares - Restitution - Unjust enrichment - Total failure of consideration - Whether there was delay on part of plaintiff in commencing action - Whether legal title of shares was vested in plaintiff - Whether issuance of share certificate to plaintiff constitutes prima facie evidence of beneficial ownership in shares had been vested in plaintiff - Whether plaintiff entitled to seek for retransfer of shares
COMPANY LAW: Shares - Transfer - Total failure of consideration - Payment was differed until after successful implementation of listing proposal - Listing proposal failed - Deferred payment of consideration cancelled - Whether beneficial interest of plaintiff's shares could pass to defendant - Whether defendant had adduced sufficient evidence to prove any payment for shares transferred by plaintiff - Whether transfer of shares meant to be a gift - Whether plaintiff merely held shares under trust for defendant
- For the plaintiff - Wong Yee Chue, Ho Hui Ying & Jean Aw Yuen Hui; M/s YC Wong
- For the defendants - Steven Tan Chee Qian, Max Chuah Chern Tee & Low Han Shin; M/s Chuah Qian & Partners
|
|
[2026] CLJU 21
|
OASIS TEAM SDN BHD v. STAR LABS BIOSCIENCE SDN BHD & ANOR
1. A business corporation agreement is materially breached the defendant allows limited access to the products under the agreement despite the fact that the business agreement stated exclusive access to the said product by the plaintiff's user. The business agreement is automatically terminated when the defendant failed to remedy the material breaches within the required period as stated in the said agreement. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to a refund and liquidated damages.
2. Damages would be an adequate remedy where a claim is concerning monetary damages. In such circumstances, relief for extension of interim injunction will become unnecessary.
CONTRACT: Breach - Agreement - Business corporation agreement - Claim for refund and liquidated damages - Access to products by plaintiff's users were denied by defendants - Admissions - Whether defendant had materially breached business agreement - Whether agreement was automatically terminated when defendant failed to remedy breaches - Whether plaintiff's evidence was rebutted - Whether plaintiff was entitled to a refund and compensation
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interim injunction - Extension - Extension until judgment is fully satisfied - Claim concerning for monetary damages - Whether damages was an adequate remedy - Whether injunctive relief should be refused - Whether there was basis to continue interim injunction once civil suit is disposed of - Whether interim injunction would become unnecessary
- For the plaintiff - R.S Sodhi, Mugilan Chandran & D.C. Chong; M/s Gurmit Sodhi Chambers
- For the defendant - Madam Gunamalar Jordann & Thian Yee Chin
|
|
[2026] CLJU 22
|
JAIREUS @ MARY FERNANDEZ v. ROSEMARIE ADOLFO APAGALANG & ANOR
1. The employee provident fund ('EPF') nomination is a statutory act governed by the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 and its subsidiary regulations. Once duly executed and registered, it carries a presumption of regularity. To invalidate such a nomination, the challenger must prove fraud, forgery, or procedural illegality. Mere doubts or suspicions are insufficient. If challenges of this nature were allowed on unsubstantiated claims, it would seriously undermine public confidence in the EPF's administration and open the floodgates to endless disputes by dissatisfied family members. The court must be cautious not to disrupt a system that serves millions of EPF contributors. EPF officers cannot be expected to defend each nomination posthumously unless clear evidence of wrongdoing is produced.
2. The party who challenges the authenticity and validity of the EPF nomination form bore the legal burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased did not execute the nomination or was incapable of doing so. Mere personal belief and subjective observation are insufficient to displace the presumption under s. 114 (illustration (e)) of the Evidence Act 1950 that official acts are performed regularly, honestly, and conscientiously. Incapacity cannot be assumed without cogent medical or expert evidence.
PROVIDENT FUND: Beneficiary - Nomination - Third party nominated as beneficiary - Dispute by next of kin concerning authenticity and validity of nomination - Allegation that deceased lacked mental and physical capacity - Whether nomination was properly executed - Whether deceased personally attend EPF counter and affixed his thumbprint on nomination form - Whether deceased possessed sufficient physical and mental capacity to execute nomination form - Whether there were cogent medical or expert evidence to prove incapacity - Whether EPF officers were negligent
- For the plaintiff - Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam; M/s Domnic Pragasam Tan & Co
- For the 2nd defendant - Nora Badaruddin, Nadia Puaad & Nur Alwani Mohd Zulhaini & Nur Muthana Hazni Azmy
|
|
[2025] CLJU 321
|
DONG MOON SOO v. SNC PROCESS SERVICES SDN BHD & ANOR
Where a plaintiff was unable to locate a foreign defendant having exercised all reasonable due diligence and having only managed to obtain last known address through a company search, the order for substituted service in terms of the substituted service order for cause papers was warranted and proper.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Setting aside - Setting aside of order for substituted service of originating summons, judgment in default and substituted service of judgment in default - Practice note - Delay - Whether substituted service of originating summons was effected in accordance with terms of substituted service order - Whether court will adopt a pragmatic approach to application of practice note - Whether order for substituted service was warranted and proper - Whether failure to state hearing date in substituted service order was a fatal defect - Whether defendant had good defence on merits for oppression - Whether defendant was an indolent litigant - Whether there was inordinate delay in filling application to set aside
- For the plaintiff - Lim Koon Huan, Siew Kar Yan & Evangeline Koay (PDK); M/s Skrine
- For the 2nd defendant - Wong Chee Ming; M/s Christina Chia Law Chambers
|
|
[2025] CLJU 325
|
TOTARESCUE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v. ONG CHENG HOONG
Where a person was employed by a foreign company but was transferred to the Malaysian operations, based on an understanding between the parties, and his salary was paid by the Malaysian company and he further observed the Malaysian gazetted public holidays as well as working at the Malaysian company's premises which subsequently accepted the resignation letter, then he is the employee of the Malaysian company. In such circumstances, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear his grievances relating to his employment with the Malaysian company.
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Employee - Respondent was employed by Singapore company and transferred to Malaysian company - Respondent's salary was paid by Malaysian company - Respondent was working at appellant's premises and observed Malaysian gazetted public holidays - Respondent's resignation letter addressed to and accepted by Malaysian company - Whether respondent was an employee of appellant - Whether appellant's claim for reimbursement should be directed to Singapore company
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against decision of Labour Court - Appellate intervention - Whether Labour Court had erred in holding that respondent was an employee of appellant - Whether Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear claim for unpaid salary
- For the appellant - Louis Liaw; M/s Chai & Company
- For the respondent - Roseveen Kaur Tyndall; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
|
CLJ 2026 Volume 4 (Part 3)
Both the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (BCPA) and the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA) mandate a single joint management body (JMB) to oversee all common property within a development. Consequently, any resolutions to establish separate maintenance accounts or independent subcommittees for residential and commercial components are ultra vires and unenforceable under these Acts. Furthermore, (i) parties are not permitted to 'contract out' of the provisions of the BCPA and SMA; and (ii) parcel owners, whether residential or commercial, are liable to pay maintenance charges and contributions regardless of whether they attended or were absent from an Annual General Meeting (AGM), or whether they voted for or objected to the same. The obligation to pay charges and contributions is imposed by statute. As social legislation, the BCPA and the SMA are designed to protect the interests of the community as a whole.
Badan Pengurusan Bersama Gurney Paragon Residental v. Hunza Properties (Gurney) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 351 [CA]
STRATA PROPERTY | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
STRATA PROPERTY: Management corporation - Joint management body ('JMB') - Mixed development - Maintenance and management of - Resolutions passed at annual general meeting for management and maintenance of residential component to be separated from commercial component - Whether ultra vires - Whether JMB ought to manage entire development area as single entity - Whether residential and commercial parcel owners liable to pay charges and contribute into building maintenance account and sinking fund account managed by JMB - Whether developer ought to surrender management and maintenance of common property to JMB - Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 - Strata Management Act 2013
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - Provisions of Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 and Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether social legislation - Whether to ensure proper management, maintenance and equitable contribution toward common property - Whether parties allowed to contract out of provisions
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JCA
Ong Chee Kwan JCA
- For the appellant - Lai Chee Hoe, Deyvinah Ganesalingam & Low Yen Hau; M/s Chee Hoe & Assocs
- For the respondents - Ashok Kumar Mahadev Ranai & Lim Chin Lun; M/s Skrine
A proposed strata plan is considered valid and proper for the issuance of a certificate of proposed strata plan ('CPS/8A Certificate') where the developer's position is fully consistent with the language of the sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') and the prevailing factual and legal matrix. Consequently, a public authority's refusal to process an 8A certificate application is invalid and legally unsustainable when based on a misconstrued or misconceived interpretation of the SPA; (ii) Where an applicant does not impugn a concluded decision of a public authority nor seek to quash an exercise of statutory power, but rather seeks declaratory relief to resolve outstanding issues arising from the interpretation of an agreement, the nature of the issues and the reliefs sought render the originating summons a proper and appropriate mode of commencement.
Cempaka Mewah Sdn Bhd v. Pengarah Ukur Dan Pemetaan Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus [2026] 4 CLJ 380 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE | STRATA PROPERTY
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Mode of commencement - Whether there was mischaracterisation of action - Whether ought to have commenced by judicial review application - Whether there was no final decision made - Whether dispute of private law nature - Whether complaint challenged legality, procedural propriety or rationality of administrative decision in public law sense - Whether matter fell exclusively within province of judicial review under O. 53 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether originating summons proper mode of commencement - Whether preliminary objection without merit
STRATA PROPERTY: Strata planning - Development of strata housing project - Application for certificate of proposed strata plan ('CPS/8A certificate') - Whether certificate application irregular - Whether strata plan and as-built plans consistent with sale and purchase agreement regarding status of car park space/lots - Whether car park designated as accessory parcel - Whether proposed strata plan valid and proper for purposes of CPS/8A certificate
Supang Lian JCA
Azimah Omar JCA
Noorin Badaruddin JCA
- For the appellant - Paari Perumal & Jayaratnam Kumarasamy; M/s Jayaratnam & Partners
- For the respondent - Amalina Zainal Mokhtar; SFC & Mohamad Shafiq Mohd Sazalli; FC
The Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agent Rules 1986 ('Rules') prohibit a registered estate agent from sharing the profits of their practice with any 'other person' who is not a registered estate agent, by virtue of r. 91(1). Furthermore, r. 91(2) limits the permissible remuneration for non-registered employees strictly to fixed salaries or commissions. Any agreement, whether oral or written, that allows a negotiator to participate in the general profit-sharing of an agency's business, beyond their own generated commissions, is a contravention of the Rules. Because these Rules are by-laws made pursuant to the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 ('Act'), a breach of the Rules is equivalent to a breach of the Act itself, rendering such a contract void for illegality.
Kenny Sim Chun Wei v. Kuan Chen-Fui [2026] 4 CLJ 395 [CA]
PROFESSIONS | CONTRACT
PROFESSIONS: Real estate negotiators - Remuneration - Oral revenue sharing agreement - Claim for payment based on revenue sharing - Real estate negotiator not registered estate agent - Whether negotiator could participate in profit-sharing of estate agency business - Whether agreement in contravention of laws - Whether remuneration limited to fixed salary or commission - Whether agreement valid and enforceable - Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981, s. 22C - Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agent Rules 1986, r. 9 1
CONTRACT: Illegality - Breach of contract - Claim for payment based on revenue sharing - Real estate negotiator not registered estate agent - Whether agreement to share profits with non-registered person void for illegality - Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981, s. 22C - Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agent Rules 1986, rr. 91(1), (2)
Lim Chong Fong JCA
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JCA
- For the appellant - Rishwant Singh & Mohd Irwan Ismail; M/s Cecil Abraham & Partners
- For the respondent - Wong Chong Wah, Wong Chun-Keat & Celeste Lu; M/s Wong & Wong
A registered proprietor of a trademark has statutory standing to initiate infringement or invalidation proceedings under s. 56(1), read with ss. 48 and 54 of the Trademarks Act 2019, without the threshold necessity of proving they are an 'aggrieved person' under s. 47. The 'aggrieved person' test is primarily reserved for a party relying on common law rights for unregistered marks. However, a party is deemed aggrieved if they possess registered marks in the same or related classes and operate within the same trade sector as the impugned mark.
Andreas Stihl AG & Co KG v. Wong Chee Seng [2026] 4 CLJ 421 [HC]
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademarks - Registered marks - Infringement - Application by registered proprietor for invalidation and expungement of infringing mark - Standing of registered proprietor - Whether registered proprietor 'aggrieved person' under s. 47(1) of Trademarks Act 2019 ('TMA') - Whether registered proprietor of trademark had express right to take court action under s. 56(1) read with ss. 48 and 54 of TMA - Whether there was necessity to prove status as 'aggrieved person'
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademarks - Registered marks - Infringement - Application for invalidation and expungement - Visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities between marks - Whether there were distinctive and dominant components of mark - Whether nature and purpose of goods or services same/similar - Whether there was significant likelihood of deception and/or confusion - Trademarks Act 2019, s. 76
- For the plaintiff - Chng Keng Lung & Irene Wong Oi Ling; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
- For the defendant - Timothy J Dass; M/s Timothy J Dass & Co
Even with a litigant's best endeavours in preparing or drafting the final judgment or order for the court's seal, inadvertent mistakes may still occur. The law, recognising this reality, confers upon the courts a limited power to correct accidental slips or omissions in a judgment or order without the need to reopen the entire case. An amendment may be granted where the mistake sought to be corrected is genuine, not misleading and does not cause any reasonable doubt or prejudice. Such a correction falls properly within the court's jurisdiction under O. 20 r. 11 of the Rules of Court 2012.
Magnum Consortium Sdn Bhd v. 3Q Resources (M) Sdn Bhd [2026] 4 CLJ 446 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Amendment of - Misdescription of land title - Rectification - Slip rule - Whether mere clerical slip - Whether amendment imperative - Whether parties misled or prejudiced - Whether doctrine of functus officio offended - Whether correction sought properly fell within court's jurisdiction under O. 20 r. 11 of Rules of Court 2012
- For the plaintiff - Shamshul Jamil, Suppiah Arumugam & Anis Nadhira Zul Akmal; M/s Presgrave & Matthews
- For the defendant - Yogeswaran Yoganathan, MS Rajendren & Thivyaa Balaraman; M/s Yoges & Co
(i) A reference to arbitration by the High Court under s. 24A(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA') is legally distinct from a voluntary arbitration under the Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA'). In a s. 24A reference, the arbitrator effectively acts as an officer of the court, and the proceeding is a delegation of the trial rather than a private contractual dispute resolution. Under s. 24A(3)(b) of the CJA, the court does not possess the jurisdiction to 'confirm' an arbitral award or enter judgment in terms of the award on its own motion (suo moto). A formal application by a party seeking to enforce the award is a mandatory procedural prerequisite; (ii) Parties have a statutory right to peruse and appreciate the findings of the arbitrator before any judgment is entered. Failure to provide the parties with the award prior to entering judgment constitutes a breach of natural justice, as it deprives the aggrieved party of their right to apply to set aside the award.
Mega Sasa Sdn Bhd v. Government Of Malaysia [2026] 4 CLJ 457 [HC]
ARBITRATION
ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Reference to arbitration by High Court - High Court entered judgment in terms of arbitral award without application by parties - Party deprived of opportunity to appreciate findings or move to set aside award - Procedure for enforcement of award - Whether reference under s. 24A of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 same as reference under Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether Court seized with jurisdiction to enter judgment on its own motion (suo moto) - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether there was breach of audi alteram partem rule - Whether there was failure to provide copy of award to parties before entering judgment - Whether judgment entered null and void - Whether liable to be set aside by collateral action
- For the applicant - Lim Choon Khim, Damien Chan Kay Ding, Ian Hannibal Liang Danial Liang & Jeff Ng Qin Liang; M/s Damien Chan, Hannibal & Ng Chambers
- For the respondent - Rohaiza Hamzah (on the Procedural Issues), Nur Melati Diana Abd Wahab & Wan Shahida Wan Omar (Substantive Issues); SFCs
Pematuhan terhadap prosedur bawah s. 31A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') bukan sekadar aturan teknikal, tetapi satu prasyarat substantif sebelum anggapan statutori bawah s. 37(k) ADB boleh diguna pakai. Kegagalan membuktikan pematuhan s. 31A secara ketat menafikan asas undang-undang bagi penggunaan anggapan bahawa tertuduh memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan. Tanpa anggapan ini, elemen teras pertuduhan bawah s. 15(1)(a) ADB gagal dibuktikan.
Noor Hisham Shamsuddin lwn. PP [2026] 4 CLJ 511 [HC]
PROSEDUR JENAYAH | UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH | KETERANGAN
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Air kencing tertuduh didapati positif dadah - Tertuduh didapati bersalah kerana memasukkan dadah dalam badan - Majistret menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM4,000, gagal bayar penjara lapan bulan, serta perintah pengawasan selama dua tahun - Sama ada kes prima facie berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada Majistret tersalah arah dalam menilai keterangan secara kritikal - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman selamat - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, s. 15(1)(a)
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Memasukkan dadah dalam badan - Kesalahan bawah s. 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') - Tertuduh didapati bersalah dan dijatuhkan hukuman denda RM4,000, gagal bayar penjara lapan bulan, serta perintah pengawasan selama dua tahun - Kes pendakwaan bergantung sepenuhnya pada anggapan statutori bawah s. 37(k) ADB - Sama ada prasyarat substantif s. 31A ADB dipatuhi - Sama ada tatacara pengambilan sampel air kencing dipatuhi - Sama ada teras kesalahan berjaya dibuktikan
KETERANGAN: Kebolehterimaan - Keterangan saintifik - Ujian saringan awal air kencing - Ketidakselarasan penggunaan 'test strip' - Sama ada analisis makmal boleh memulihkan kecacatan material pada peringkat saringan awal secara retrospektif - Sama ada identiti dan integriti sampel air kencing terjejas - Sama ada rantaian kawalan terputus
- Bagi pihak perayu - Yogeswaran Yoganathan; T/n Yoges & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Mohd Hairol Jemain; TPR
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
-
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION DANGER ZONE: TRAPS TO AVOID IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL
[Read excerpt]
by Subash Ramasamy* [2026] CLJU(A) xl
[2026] CLJU(A) xl
MALAYSIA
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION DANGER ZONE: TRAPS TO AVOID IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL
by
Subash Ramasamy*
ABSTRACT
One of the pre-eminent concerns of a prospective client before appointing a lawyer would be whether or not that recommended lawyer can break any star witness by demolishing him during cross-examination. It will be fair to say that most of the cases are won or lost during cross-examination.
While mastering how to cross-examine is essential, it is equally important to know what mistakes one needs to avoid during cross-examination. No doubt, it will maximise opportunities for a favourable result.
This article focuses on the mistakes or traps that criminal lawyers must attempt to avoid during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness.
. . .
-
CLOSING REMARKS AT THE SICC SEMINAR 2026
[Read excerpt]
by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon [2026] CLJU(A) xli
[2026] CLJU(A) xli
MALAYSIA
CLOSING REMARKS AT THE SICC SEMINAR 2026
by
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
1. As a young lawyer at the very start of my career, I was told that to succeed as a commercial litigator, I needed to know the rules of procedure inside out. That was undoubtedly true, but as litigation has become ever more transnational in nature, a particular aspect of civil procedure has come in many ways to take centre stage – and that is the area of interim reliefs, and more specifically, interim injunctions. That has been the focus of our discussions this afternoon, and by any measure, these have been rich and very substantive. I invite you to join me once again in thanking all those who have participated.
2. Interim injunctions are powerful tools in the judicial arsenal. Most in this room will recall American Cyanamid[>1] and the famous balance of convenience test, which was groundbreaking in many respects, but perhaps especially because this interim relief had the potential to have disproportionate impact on substantive outcomes in litigation. And that was so because of some key characteristics of the interim injunction: it was typically dealt with on a very short time frame; it would typically be resolved with limited evidence and without final findings of fact; and the focus would usually be on preserving the status quo, though in some settings, it could also take the form of enforcing an underlying obligation by restraining the breach of that obligation, including in the context of the anti-suit injunction ("ASI").
. . .
-
MEDIATION IN MODERN CIVIL JUSTICE: DOCTRINAL FOUNDATIONS, JUDICIAL DIRECTION AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES BETWEEN ENGLAND AND WALES AND MALAYSIA*
[Read excerpt]
by Steven Perian KC** [2026] CLJU(A) xlii
[2026] CLJU(A) xlii
MALAYSIA
MEDIATION IN MODERN CIVIL JUSTICE:
DOCTRINAL FOUNDATIONS, JUDICIAL DIRECTION AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES BETWEEN ENGLAND AND WALES AND MALAYSIA*
by
Steven Perian KC**
ABSTRACT
Mediation has evolved from a voluntary adjunct to litigation into an increasingly embedded component of modern civil justice systems. This article examines the doctrinal foundations and practical operation of mediation, with particular focus on its integration within the procedural frameworks of England and Wales and Malaysia. It analyses the distinction between mediation and adjudication, the respective roles of mediators and parties, and the growing expectation that parties engage in mediation as part of responsible litigation conduct.
The article considers the development of judicial approaches to mediation, including the emergence of court-directed alternative dispute resolution in England and Wales following Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, and contrasts this with the procedurally structured but non-coercive framework established in Malaysia under Arahan Amalan Ketua Hakim Negara Bilangan 2 Tahun 2022 (the 2022 Practice Direction). It further evaluates the cost implications, structural advantages, and limitations of mediation, and examines its strategic significance in contemporary legal practice.
The article concludes that while both jurisdictions recognise the value of mediation, they differ in the degree of judicial intervention employed to promote engagement. The English model reflects qualified compulsion supported by cost consequences, whereas the Malaysian model emphasises structured facilitation while preserving party autonomy.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| AKTA 27 |
Akta Agensi Persendirian 1971 |
AKTA A1782 |
28 April 2026 [PU(B) 147/2026] |
Seksyen 3, 5, 9, 13 and 18A |
| ACT 27 |
Private Agencies Act 1971 |
ACT A1782 |
28 April 2026 [PU(B) 147/2026] |
Sections 3, 5, 9, 13 and 18A |
| ACT 206 |
Arms Act 1960 (Revised 1978) |
PU(A) 94/2026 |
21 February 2026 |
Second Schedule |
| ACT 751 |
Rukun Tetangga Act 2012 |
ACT A1789 |
1 April 2026 [PU(B) 90/2026] |
Sections 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 17 and 23 |
| AKTA 751 |
Akta Rukun Tetangga 2012 |
AKTA A1789 |
1 April 2026 [PU(B) 90/2026] |
Seksyen 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 17 dan 23 |
Revoked
|
