Print this page
CLJ Pulse Header
Issue #35/2025
28 August 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

NG WAI PIN v. ONG YEW TEIK & OTHER APPEALS [2025] 7 CLJ 859
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH FCJ
[CIVIL APPEALS NOS: 02(i)-38-09-2024(W), 02(i)-39-09-2024(W),
02(i)-40-09-2024(W) & 02(i)-41-09-2024(W)]
25 MARCH 2025

(i) The common law principle of absolute witness immunity for parties and witnesses in civil actions regarding evidence given in judicial proceedings is recognised in Malaysia. This immunity applies to statements, oral and/or written, and extends to acts done from the inception of proceedings, including pleadings and other documents for the purpose of the proceedings. The determination of the immunity should be made at the striking out application stage; (ii) The tort of malicious prosecution is not applicable or recognised for civil proceedings in Malaysia. The principle that malice is generally irrelevant in tort law, so long as a person has a legal right to commence proceedings, underpins this non-recognition; (iii) A general tort of fraud based on alleged perjury in judicial proceedings is not recognised or actionable in Malaysia, as it would contradict the principle of witness immunity. The appropriate remedy for perjury lies in criminal law, where it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - First civil suit filed to claim for unpaid sum of monies - First civil suit decided in claimant's favour - Claimant filed second civil suit based upon conduct and/or evidence of opposing party - Applications by opposing party to strike out second suit - Whether re-litigation of same issue - Whether permissible for claimant who had been vindicated in first civil action to mount second action against same opposing party - Whether action ought to be struck out

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Witnesses - Witness immunity - Absolute immunity - First civil suit filed to claim for unpaid sum of monies - First civil suit decided in claimant's favour - Claimant filed second civil suit based upon conduct and/or evidence of opposing party - Common law principle of immunity of party and witness from liability in civil action - Whether absolute - Whether witness immunity ought to be determined at striking out application at pleading stage

TORT: Malicious prosecution - Applicability - Whether tort of malicious prosecution available for civil proceedings in Malaysia

TORT: Fraud - Perjury - First civil suit filed to claim for unpaid sum of monies - First civil suit decided in claimant's favour - Claimant filed second civil suit based upon conduct and/or evidence of opposing party - Whether cause of action premised upon tort of fraud based on perjury recognised and/or actionable claim in Malaysia

APPEAL UPDATES

  1. Abu Bakar Mohd Yusof lwn. PP [2024] CLJU 2779 mengesahkan kes Abu Bakar Bin Mohd Yusof lwn. PP [Rayuan Jenayah No.: BA-42 (R)(A)-8-12/2018]

  2. Pek Heng Swee lwn. PP [2024] CLJU 2691 menolak kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Pek Heng Swee [2023] CLJU 2638; [2023] 1 LNS 2638

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2025] CLJU 81

YESB SDN BHD v. BARCON INDUSTRIES SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE

1. A subcontractor is entitled to claim for additional works when the additional works were carried out at the instructions of the main contractor after the completion date. Absence of a separate supplemental or collateral agreement for additional works is not a ground for the main contractor to resist the claim for additional works carried out by the subcontractor.

2. Time was set at large when the main contractor gave instructions to the subcontractor to do additional work after the completion date, without a revised completion date. In such circumstances, the main contractor has no right to impose liquidated ascertained damages on the subcontractor for work carried out after the completion date.

3. Prayer for costs to be paid on a solicitor-client basis is deemed abandoned when there are no submissions made on the prayer for solicitor-client costs and in the absence of any solicitor's invoice or itemised bill of costs tendered.

CONTRACT: Building contract - Subcontract - Claim for work done - Additional works after completion date - Absence of supplemental or collateral agreement on additional works - Whether additional works had been verified by main contractor - Whether additional works were carried out at instruction of main contractor - Whether additional works originated from subcontractor's failure

CONTRACT: Building contract - Liquidated and ascertained damages ('LAD') - Subcontract - Claim by main contractor against subcontractor - Allegation that subcontractor failed to complete work within completion date - Additional works were instructed by main contractor without providing for a revised completion period - Whether main contractor has right to impose LAD on subcontractor - Whether delay in issuance of certificate of practical completion was caused by additional works instructed by main contractor

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Costs - Solicitor and client - Discretionary power of court - No submissions made on prayer for solicitor-client costs – Solicitors’ invoice and bill of costs were not produced - Whether claim for costs to be paid on solicitor-client basis deemed abandoned

  • For the appellant in Appeal No. WA-12BC-3-03/2023 and the respondent in Appeal No. WA-12BC-5-04/2023 - Tan Chi Sian & Rosamirah Insyirah Zamr; M/s C S Tan Seah & Partners
  • For the appellant in Appeal No. WA-12BC-5-04/2023 and the respondent in Appeal No. WA-12BC-3-03/2023 - Cheong Sek Kwan & Leow Chai Fah; M/s Leow & Associates

[2025] CLJU 93

ASIAN KITCHEN (M) SDN BHD v. MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD

1. A counterclaim is an independent action that must be considered separately from the main claim or any pending appeals. The fact that the plaintiff's main claim has not been dismissed does not, ipso facto, mean that the defendant is not entitled to seek summary judgment under O. 14 r. 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 in regard to the counterclaim. Furthermore, the existence of an appeal cannot negate clear contractual rights that have accrued, particularly where the underlying facts are undisputed.

2. Where a tenancy has expired, there is no legal basis for the tenant to remain in occupation of the property thereafter. In such circumstances, the landlord is entitled to claim vacant possession of the property and damages against the tenant, including double rental until possession is given up, regardless of whether notice to that effect was given or not.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Counterclaim - Vacant possession and double rental - Breach of tenancy agreement - Claim by landlord against tenant - Tenant's application for interim injunction in main action is pending appeal - Legitimate expectation - Whether counterclaim should be considered separately from any pending appeals - Whether doctrine of legitimate expectation applicable in private tenancy disputes - Whether impact on employees and business operations could override clear contractual rights - Whether there is agreement for tenant to remain on premise beyond tenancy period - Whether deposit of future rental into a fixed deposit account was relevant - Whether landlord entitled for double rental - Whether there were genuine triable issues

  • For the plaintiffs - Dhanaraj Vasudevan, Kalai Selvi Mariamuthu & Arun Ganesh Boopalan; M/s Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim
  • For the defendant - D P Naban, Oazair Huneid Tyeb, Nik Aimi Nabilah & Siti Sarah Md Rodzi; M/s Shahrizat Rashid & Lee

[2025] CLJU 100

GREENERY PARTNERS & NETWORKS SDN BHD v. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Issuance of a statement by the utility provider containing the required particulars is prima facie evidence of the amount that the consumer has to pay for loss of revenue due to tampering with the meter installation. It follows that the issuance of notice of demand attaching photographs and calculation which was duly certified qualifies as prima facie evidence of the quantum of lost revenue, i.e. evidence which, if not balanced or outweighed by other evidence, will suffice to establish the quantum as claimed. The onus of proof is then on the consumer to demonstrate that the calculations are manifestly wrong or excessive.

UTILITIES: Electricity - Consumption and usage - Meter tampering - Loss of revenue - Unrecorded electricity usage - Premise under tenancy - Usage of bypass cables - Whether presence of bypass cables creates an alternate low-resistance path for current to circumvent meter - Whether who did meter tempering and who benefited from loss of revenue need to be proven - Whether issuance of notice of demand with calculation was prima facie evidence of loss of revenue - Whether there was any requirement for latest certificate - Whether there was sufficient rebuttal evidence to displace prima facie truth of calculations in notice of demand

  • For the appellant - Goh Kee Seng; M/s Kelvin Wong, Phang & Associates
  • For the respondent - Siti Liyana Yahya; M/s Othman Hashim & Co

[2025] CLJU 74

M7 CO LTD JAPAN & SATU LAGI lwn. TAIICHIRO YAMAGUCHI & SATU LAGI

Dalam membuktikan bahawa mahkamah di Malaysia mempunyai bidang kuasa, adalah mencukupi sekiranya plaintif membuktikan secara prima facie bahawa wujud keterangan yang menunjukkan mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa bagi mendengar kes apabila salah satu syarat dalam s. 23(1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dipenuhi.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Bidang kuasa - Mahkamah - Kausa tindakan berasaskan dokumen yang ditandatangani di Malaysia - Defendan pertama warganegara Jepun dan bermastautin di Jepun - Defendan kedua diperbadankan di Jepun dan tidak mempunyai tempat perniagaan di Malaysia - Defendan pernah menyerah diri di bawah bidang kuasa mahkamah di Malaysia dalam guaman yang lain - Sama ada Mahkamah di Malaysia mempunyai bidang kuasa bagi mendengar dan memutuskan tindakan - Sama ada syarat dalam s. 23 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 telah dibuktikan

  • Bagi pihak plaintif-plaintif - Kuthubul Zaman SNS Bukhari & Aimi Zaman; T/n Syarizad, Zaman & Seah
  • Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Alliff Benjamin Suhaimi & Phoebe Loi Yean Wei; T/n Thomas Philip

[2025] CLJU 96

ASHMAAN IBRAHIM lwn. PP

Penafian tertuduh berhubung pengedaran dadah semata-mata adalah tidak mencukupi untuk mencabar keterangan saksi dan tidak menimbulkan sebarang keraguan munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan atau mematahkan anggapan di bawah s. 37(da) Akta Dadah Berhabaya 1952.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Dadah jenis methamphetamine seberat 763.8g - Dadah dijumpai di dalam kereta di bawah kerusi penumpang hadapan - Sama ada kes prima facie telah dibuktikan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah - Sama ada anggapan pengedaran dadah di bawah s. 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai - Sama ada rantaian keterangan berhubung dadah adalah utuh - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh berbentuk penafian semata-mata

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Azamuddin Abdul Aziz & Muhamad Aizat Fakri; T/n Azamuddin And Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - TPR Noorhisham Mohd Jaafar; Pendakwa; Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Selangor

CLJ 2025 Volume 7 (Part 5)

A company involved in generating electricity is not engaged in manufacturing activity within the context of Schedule 7A of the Income Tax Act 1967, and therefore is not eligible for reinvestment allowance under the said Schedule. Such a company should claim investment allowance under Schedule 7B, which specifically applies to the utility sector. Allowing both capital allowance and reinvestment allowance for the same items amounts to impermissible double-dipping.
Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 7 CLJ 685 [FC]

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Allowances - Investment and reinvestment allowances - Utility sector - Claim by electricity provider/generator for reinvestment allowance under Schedule 7A of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether manufacturing activity under Schedule 7A - Whether company eligible for reinvestment allowance under Schedule 7A - Whether investment allowance under Schedule 7B applicable to utility sector - Whether claim for reinvestment allowance and capital allowance on same items amounted to double-dipping - Whether prohibited in tax law - Whether lex posterior derogat legi priori applied - Income Tax Act 1967, Schedules 7A & 7B

 

 

Abang Iskandar PCA
Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ
Zabariah Yusof FCJ
Rhodzariah Bujang FCJ
Abu Bakar Jais FCJ

  • For the appellant - Cyrus V Das, Zaleha Adam, Ashrina Ramzan Ali, Muazmir Mohd Yusof, Surani Che Ismail, Mohamad Asyraf Zakaria & Nik Amyrah Syarinie Mohd Dusuki; DPP
  • For the respondent - DP Naban, S Saravana Kumar, Nur Amira Ahmad Azhar & Lin Rui Ern; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership

With respect to licence pertaining to importation of reconditioned motor vehicles as issued by the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry ('MITI'), it is governed by a policy called 'Dasar Baharu AP Terbuka' as passed by the MITI. A contractual arrangement, which was entered in contravention with any of the terms of the said licence or policy, could not only be rendered as void ab initio pursuant to s. 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950, but considering that the said policy was passed by the MITI in accordance with order 3 of the Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 2017, the contractual agreement could also be illegal for breaching order 3(1) of the said Order.
Agasta Co Ltd & Anor v. Autopulence Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2025] 7 CLJ 707 [CA]

CONTRACT: Illegality - Agreement - Contractual agreement entered contrary to licence and policy issued by Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry ('MITI') - Holder of licence allowed other businesses to use licence to import reconditioned motorcars from Japan in return for payment ('contractual arrangement') - Whether actions of licence holder allowed by terms of licence and policy of MITI - Whether contractual arrangement in contravention with public policy - Whether rendered void ab initio by s. 24(e) of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether in breach of order 3(1) of Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 2017

 

 

S Nantha Balan JCA
Azizul Azmi Adnan JCA
Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JCA

  • For the appellants - Cyndi Chow Li Kian, Kevin Chin Kwan Vui, Ho Yong Yi & Chin Hau Zhe; M/s Josephine, LK Chow & Co
  • For the respondents - Tan Shao Jia & Wong Jun Wei; M/s Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners

It is a clear legislative intent of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') that an appeal to the High Court should only be made on a final order or decision of the Disciplinary Board ('DB'), that encapsulates both an order on liability and on punishment. A letter by the DB notifying the advocate and solicitor of the affirmation of liability and giving the said advocate and solicitor the opportunity to be heard is essentially a notification, which is more indicative in nature and is certainly not definitive, and could not therefore be construed as the final order or decision that is appealable under s. 103 of the LPA.
Chanravathane S Ponnudurai v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia [2025] 7 CLJ 723 [CA]

LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary Proceedings - Disciplinary Board ('DB') - Complaint against advocate and solicitor - Affirmation of findings of liability by Disciplinary Committee - DB's letter notifying advocate and solicitor of affirmation of liability and giving opportunity to be heard - Advocate and solicitor filed originating summons to appeal against DB's letter - Whether premature and incompetent - Whether DB's letter final order or decision - Whether appealable under s. 103E of Legal Profession Act 1976

 

 

Supang Lian JCA
Mohd Nazlan Ghazali JCA
Azizul Azmi Adnan JCA

  • For the appellant - Amarjeet Singh, Avtar Singh & Chanravathane S Ponnudurai; M/s SP Chanra
  • For the respondent - Jack Yow Pit & Ong Eng Hong; M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners

Dalam satu pertikaian antara plaintif dan defendan berasaskan satu perjanjian, plaintif perlu menunjukkan wujudnya priviti dalam kontrak dengan defendan. Tanpa priviti kontrak dan tanpa pembuktian bahawa plaintif adalah salah satu pihak dalam kontrak yang menjadi perkara pertikaian, plaintif tiada locus standi untuk memulakan tindakan terhadap defendan dalam kemungkiran kontrak.
Integrate Steel Mill Sdn Bhd lwn. Gas Malaysia Virtual Pipeline Sdn Bhd [2025] 7 CLJ 739 [CA]

KONTRAK: Priviti - Kewujudan - Plaintif memulakan tindakan terhadap defendan atas kemungkiran perjanjian - Sama ada plaintif pihak yang berkontrak dengan defendan dalam perjanjian - Sama ada nama plaintif dizahirkan dalam kontrak - Sama ada terdapat serah hak nyata pada plaintif untuk dijadikan pihak dalam perjanjian - Sama ada plaintif mempunyai locus untuk memulakan tindakan terhadap defendan - Sama ada plaintif berhak menuntut ganti rugi terhadap defendan

 

 

Mariana Yahya HMR
Hashim Hamzah HMR
Ismail Ibrahim H

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Wong Fook Yong, Amalia Mohamad Said; T/n Wong, Law & Ti
  • Bagi pihak responden - Shaikh Abdul Saleem & Mah Dick Son; T/n Shaikh David & Co

An arbitral award may be set aside if the arbitral tribunal commits a serious breach of the rules of natural justice that has a real impact on the outcome of the arbitral proceedings. Such breaches include: (i) failing to adequately appreciate or explain its reasoning for an awarded sum, especially when it deviates significantly from expert witness' valuations and failing to discuss the basis for each sub-claim when the sub-claims are supported by distinct evidence and computations; (ii) disregarding the opinions of parties' experts and submissions on issues, particularly concerning specific sub-claims; and (iii) failing to address pertinent issues raised by one of the parties, as this constitutes a fundamental procedural unfairness.
Kebabangan Petroleum Operating Company Sdn Bhd v. Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2025] 7 CLJ 759 [CA]

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Construction contracts - Arbitral award - Awarded sum deviated significantly from expert witness' valuations - Arbitral tribunal failed to appreciate or explain reasoning for awarded sum - Arbitral tribunal failed to discuss basis for each sub-claim when sub-claims are supported by distinct evidence and computations - Arbitral tribunal failed to address pertinent issues raised by parties - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether constituted fundamental procedural unfairness

 

 

Mariana Yahya JCA
Azimah Omar JCA
Wan Ahmad Farid Salleh JCA

  • For the appellant - Wilfred Abraham, Kuhendran Thanapalasingam & Agesh Jeyaratnam; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
  • For the respondent - Cyrus Das, Mohanadass Kanagasabai, Kalashini Sandrasegaran & Thomas Shaun Mathews; M/s Mohanadass Partnership

(i) When a court considers an application for the removal of a company liquidator, it will assess the interests of the general body of creditors and contributories as a whole. There is no requirement that each and every person who is interested in the liquidation must support the application for removal, for if this were so, then the liquidator who has unfairly preferred the interests of one creditor or contributories over those of the general body of creditors and contributories can never be removed. It sufficed if the court is of the view that it would be in the interest of those who are interested in the liquidation for the liquidator to be removed; (ii) All contributories or creditors have to be given notice of the application for the removal of the liquidator. If the requirement for prior notice is not fulfilled, it may be fatal to the application.
Majidee Park Auto Spares & Services Sdn Bhd & Anor v. N Thanavathy Rajah & Anor [2025] 7 CLJ 769 [CA]

COMPANY LAW: Liquidators - Removal - Application for - Whether liquidator had valid license and clothed with authority to act - Whether liquidator failed to perform duties with promptitude - Whether application to remove liquidator supported by contributories and creditors - Whether notice of application for removal given to all contributories and creditors - Requirement for prior notice - Whether fulfilled - Whether fatal to application - Companies Act 2016, s. 482(b)

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Removal of liquidators - Application for - Whether liquidator had valid license and clothed with authority to act - Whether liquidator failed to perform duties with promptitude - Whether application to remove liquidator supported by contributories and creditors - Whether notice of application for removal given to all contributories and creditors - Requirement for prior notice - Whether fulfilled - Whether fatal to application - Companies Act 2016, s. 482(b)

 

 

Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim JCA
Azizul Azmi Adnan JCA
Alwi Abdul Wahab JCA

  • For the appellants - Brenda Rangithan; M/s Mohanadass Partnership
  • For the 1st respondent - G Ravi & Aida Hassan; M/s Aida & G Ravi; (Also mentioning on behalf of the 2nd respondent, Malaysian Department of Insolvency Johor Bharu)

(i) The requirement to obtain leave before commencing proceedings against a liquidator is a fundamental safeguard in corporate insolvency law; (ii) An application seeking leave to pursue legal action against a liquidator ought to be dismissed if it is shown that the liquidator's conduct in the management of the company is consistent with statutory requirements. A liquidator cannot be subjected to unwarranted litigation unless clear evidence of misconduct or pecuniary loss is demonstrated. Permitting unfounded lawsuits against liquidators can lead to delays in winding-up proceedings and increased costs, ultimately prejudicing creditors and contributories.
In Re Far Origin Sdn Bhd [2025] 7 CLJ 787 [HC]

COMPANY LAW: Liquidators - Leave to initiate proceedings - Application to initiate proceedings against liquidator for allegations of impropriety and mismanagement - Whether there was evidence of bad faith, misconduct or pecuniary loss to company - Res judicata - Whether applicable - Locus standi - Whether established - Whether liquidator's conduct in management of company consistent with statutory requirements - Whether obtaining leave before initiating proceedings against liquidator required - Whether applicant met necessary criteria for leave to commence proceedings against liquidator

 

 

Moses Susayan JC

  • For the applicant - Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam; M/s Domnic Pragasam Tan & Co
  • For the liquidator/respondent - Lee Boon Koon; M/s Arissa Tan Chien & Co

A parent or person having the care of a child is legally liable for neglect under s. 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001 if their failure to provide adequate care, in this case leaving a three-year-old child unattended in a condominium unit resulting in the child's death from a fall, constitutes inexcusable neglect within their resources, as deemed by s. 31(4) of the same Act.
Nurzalyeni Aryssha Razali v. PP [2025] 7 CLJ 803 [HC]

|

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Neglect of child - Mother neglected three-year old child - Mother left child in condominium unit - Child fell to death - Mother found guilty, convicted for offence and sentenced accordingly - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Child Act 2001, s. 31(1)(a) & 31(4)

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences - Neglect of child - Mother neglected three-year old child - Mother left child in condominium unit - Child fell to death - Mother found guilty, convicted for offence and sentenced accordingly - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Child Act 2001, s. 31(1)(a) & 31(4)

 

Muniandy Kannyappan J

  • For the appellant/accused - DC Sunderasan Krishnan; M/s Lakshmi Gandhi Nathan & Partners
  • For the respondent/prosecution - Aqilah Ishak; DPP

The phrase 'immovable property or any registered interest therein', in O. 47 r. 6 of the Rules of Court 2012, should be interpreted in the context of interests that are capable of registration under the provisions of the Sarawak Land Code (Cap. 81) and which are also capable of being taken or physically seized and sold pursuant to a writ of seizure and sale.
Public Bank Bhd v. Wong Sing Hua & Anor [2025] 7 CLJ 816 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Prohibitory order - Judgment creditor ('JC') obtained judgment against judgment debtors ('JD') - Application by JC to enforce judgment - JC sought prohibitory order to be issued under writ of seizure and sale for seizure of JD's rights and interests land with building thereon - JD not registered owner and right and interest only by virtue of sale and purchase agreement - Land remained registered in names of co-proprietors - Whether JD's unregistered beneficial interest enforceable in equity - Whether unregistered interest could be seized and taken in execution of writ of seizure and sale by way of prohibitory order - Whether court ought to exercise inherent jurisdiction to recognise equitable mortgage and order sale of unregistered beneficial interest - Rules of Court 2012, O. 47 r. 6 - Sarawak Land Code (Cap. 81)

 

 

Wong Siong Tung J

  • For the judgment creditor - William Ting Siew Chon & Grace Ngu; M/s Tang & Partners Advcs
  • For the judgment debtor - Absent

(i) In cases of unauthorised reproduction and use of copyrighted software, where the rightful owner commercialises its rights through royalty-bearing licenses, the appropriate measure of general damages is ascertained by reference to the licensing fees customarily levied by the claimant in lawful commercial engagements, even if direct evidence of the extent of actual use is elusive. However, the court will consider the infringer's actual utilisation, or lack thereof, and other evidentiary gaps in determining a reasonable and proportionate license fee; (ii) Additional damages, under s. 37(7) of the Copyright Act 1987, are warranted when there are elements of bad faith on the part of the infringer, even if the infringement was confined to a limited scope and the infringer subsequently took remedial measures.
Siemens Industry Software Inc v. KB Engineering Coatings Sdn Bhd [2025] 7 CLJ 831 [HC]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Copyright - Software - Unauthorised reproduction and use of software without valid license - Assessment of damages - Applicability of license fee approach - Whether rightful owner of software entitled to damages based on license fee approach - Whether there were elements of bad faith on part of infringer warranting additional damages - Principle of 'omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatroem' - Appropriate measure of general and additional damages - Copyright Act 1987, s. 37(7)

 

 

Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC

  • For the plaintiff - Wendy Lam Mei Kuan & Wong Jia Ee; M/s V Chong W Lam
  • For the defendant - Rex Kuan Kai Tat; M/s Rajashree

In assessing damages, courts must balance the interests of both parties while ensuring a plaintiff is fairly compensated for proven losses, particularly in cases involving complex claims where precise calculations may not be possible. The law does not require absolute certainty in the quantification of damages. Instead, it recognises that some degree of estimation is inevitable in certain circumstances provided the assessment is fair, reasonable and based on the evidence available.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Panareno Sdn Bhd; Vital Projects Sdn Bhd (Third Party); Semantra No-Dig Engineering Sdn Bhd (Fourth Party) [2025] 7 CLJ 843 [HC]

|

DAMAGES: Assessment - Quantum - Degree of estimation - Whether precise calculations possible - Whether limitation on scope of assessment of damages imposed - Replacement of damaged cables - Whether complied with site and regulatory limitations - Whether amount awarded ought to reflect need to compensate non-quantifiable but substantial burdens - Whether assessment of damages consistent with principle of full compensation

TORT: Negligence - Damages - Claim for - Quantum of - Degree of estimation - Whether precise calculations possible - Whether limitation on scope of assessment of damages imposed - Replacement of damaged cables - Whether complied with site and regulatory limitations - Whether amount awarded ought to reflect need to compensate non-quantifiable but substantial burdens - Whether assessment of damages consistent with principle of full compensation

 

Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J

  • For the plaintiff - Balvinder Singh Kenth & Rishipal Singh Ambar Singh; M/s Kenth Partnership
  • For the defendant - Nigel William Kraal; M/s Cheang & Ariff
  • For the 3rd party - Rajendra Navaratham & Sandhya Saravanan; M/s Azman Davidson & Co
  • For the 4th party - Low Eu Thuan; M/s Cheong Wai Meng & Van Buerle

 

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. MALAYSIA: REVISITING THE INSANITY DEFENCE FOR CONTEMPORARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE [Read excerpt]
    by Dr Teoh Shu Yee* [2025] CLJU(A) lxxviii

    2. [2025] CLJU(A) lxxviii
    MALAYSIA

    MALAYSIA: REVISITING THE INSANITY DEFENCE FOR CONTEMPORARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE

    by
    Dr Teoh Shu Yee*

    INTRODUCTION

    First and foremost, the author is grateful for the opportunity to present her research poster titled 'Malaysia: Towards a Unified Legal and Psychiatric Framework for the Insanity Defence' at the 6th Asian Conference of Criminal and Operations Psychology 2025, Grand Copthorne Waterfront Hotel, Singapore, on 16 July 2025. It was a pleasure to connect with experts and professionals in the field to exchange knowledge and perspectives. The presentation experience sparked further interest and inspired the author to write this article, which the author hopes offers meaningful insights on legal reform of the insanity defence in light of modern developments.

    The recent Malaysian Federal Court's decision in PP v. Mohd Rozani Yahaya[1] reinforces a key legal principle that the defence of insanity under section 84 of the Penal Code[2] must be proven by the defence during trial and not presumed at the prosecution stage. The Rozani case once again brings attention to an important and often misunderstood issue, despite longstanding legal authority on the matter, highlighting the difference between medical and legal insanity. In criminal law, the two are not the same.

    . . .

    *PhD, The National University of Malaysia (UKM); Master of Criminal Justice (MCJ), University of Malaya; LLB (Hons), Multimedia University Melaka (MMU); currently Magistrate, Magistrates' Court of Alor Gajah, Melaka. The contents here are strictly the author's own views and are not intended to represent those of the Malaysian Judiciary.

  2. REVISITING BURSA'S REGULATORY AUTHORITY: CONTRACTUAL FICTION OR STATUTORY REALITY? [Read excerpt]
    by Chong Wai Kuan* [2025] CLJU(A) lxxix

    3. [2025] CLJU(A) lxxix
    MALAYSIA

    REVISITING BURSA'S REGULATORY AUTHORITY:
    CONTRACTUAL FICTION OR STATUTORY REALITY?

    by
    Chong Wai Kuan*

    ABSTRACT

    This article critically examines the juridical basis and regulatory legitimacy of Bursa Malaysia's Listing Requirements (MMLR), particularly in light of the increasing intersection between capital market regulation and core principles of Malaysian company law. The central focus of this article is to challenge the orthodox characterisation of the MMLR as a consensual "contractual regime" between Bursa Malaysia and listed entities, especially in the context of foreign companies seeking listing on the Main or ACE Market. While listing is formally framed as a non-negotiable instrument, it requires scrutiny through a public law lens.

    The analysis is anchored by the recent case of Pop Investments Ltd v. iCapital.Biz Bhd, which raises profound questions about the enforceability of Bursa Malaysia's directives, the procedural rights of listed issuers, and the limits of judicial review under Malaysian administrative law. By comparing this with statutory obligations under the Companies Act 2016 and regulatory provisions of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, the article examines a disjuncture between the doctrinal promise of consent and the operational reality of regulatory compulsion.

    . . .

    *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.

  3. 'TECHNOLOGY AS A BRIDGE TO JUSTICE'
    SPEECH DELIVERED AT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY ON 30 MAY 2024+         [Read excerpt]
    by Justice Aedit Abdullah* [2025] CLJU(A) lxxx

    4. [2025] CLJU(A) lxxx
    SINGAPORE

    'TECHNOLOGY AS A BRIDGE TO JUSTICE'

    SPEECH DELIVERED AT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY ON 30 MAY 2024+

    by
    Justice Aedit Abdullah*

    Introduction

    1. A very good afternoon to everyone. Thank you for joining us today for the fifth instalment of the Singapore Courts' "Conversations with the Community" series. I would also like to thank the Singapore University of Social Sciences (School of Law) for hosting this session today. It is indeed befitting that I am making my address on technology as a bridge to justice in a university. Law students represent the future of the legal profession; their values and views would shape our legal system in the years to come.

    2. The Courts have embraced technology to not only support lawyers but also empower members of the public in navigating legal processes. By leveraging technology, we aim to enhance accessibility, transparency, and efficiency within the legal system. However, amidst our digital advancements, we must remain mindful of the segment of the public that lacks access to technology. It is crucial that as we progress towards a more technologically driven legal landscape, we do not leave anyone behind. At the first instalment of "Conversations with the Community", the Chief Justice shared for example how the Family Justice Courts' Divorce and Probate eServices can be used to generate court papers that are needed to apply for a divorce or for a Grant of Probate in certain cases. He also shared that we have been exploring the use of generative artificial intelligence to advance our mission of access to justice. I will be touching briefly on the latter in my sharing today.

    . . .

    +Reproduced with permission of the Singapore Courts: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/justice-aedit-abdullah--speech-delivered-at-conversations-with-the-community-on-30-may-2024.

    *Judge of the High Court of Singapore, and Judge in Charge of Transformation and Innovation.

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) 237/2025 Pesticides (Exemption) Order 2025 31 July 2025 1 August 2025 ACT 149
PU(A) 236/2025 Road Transport (Exemption) Rules 2025 31 July 2025 1 August 2025 ACT 333
PU(A) 235/2025 Loans Guarantee (Declaration of Bodies Corporate) (Mkd Signature Sdn. Bhd.) Order 2025 31 July 2025 1 August 2025 ACT 96
PU(A) 234/2025 Water Services Industry (Rates For Water Supply Services) (State of Perlis) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 30 July 2025 1 August 2025 PU(A) 241/2022
PU(A) 233/2025 Water Services Industry (Rates For Water Supply Services) (State of Perak) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 30 July 2025 1 August 2025 PU(A) 242/2022

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 315/2025 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 21 August 2025 22 August 2025 ACT A1726
PU(B) 314/2025 Notification of Value of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 21 August 2025 22 August 2025 to 4 September 2025 ACT 235
PU(B) 313/2025 Appointment of Chairman of A Division of The Industrial Court 21 August 2025 1 June 2025 to 31 May 2029 ACT 177
PU(B) 312/2025 Notice Regarding The Certification and Inspection of The Supplementary Electoral Roll For The Month of July 2025 20 August 2025 21 August 2025 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 311/2025 Notification of Value of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12 20 August 2025 1 September 2025 to 30 September 2025 ACT 235

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
ACT 788 Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia Act 2017 ACT A1723 1 August 2025 [PU(B) 279/2025] Sections 2, 5, 6, 10A, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 36A - 36Z, 36ZA - 36ZZ, 36ZAA - 36ZAB, 43, 43A and 43B; First Schedule, Second Schedule and Third Schedule
AKTA 788 Akta Pihak Berkuasa Penerbangan Awam Malaysia 2017 AKTA A1723 1 Ogos 2025 [PU(B) 279/2025] Seksyen 2, 5, 6, 10A, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 36A - 36Z, 36ZA - 36ZZ, 36ZAA - 36ZAB, 43, 43A dan 43B; Jadual Pertama, Kedua dan ketiga
ACT 438 Free Zones Act 1990 PU(B) 269/2025 21 July 2025 Second Schedule
AKTA 438 Akta Zon Bebas 1990 PU(B) 269/2025 21 Julai 2025 Jadual Kedua
ACT 593 Criminal Procedure Code (Revised 1999) ACT A1751 11 July 2025 [PU(B) 263/2025] First Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
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
PU(A) 233/2009 Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009 PU(A) 326/2024 1 November 2024
PU(A) 473/1999 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 1999 PU(A) 325/2024 1 November 2024

Copyright © CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here