CASE SPOTLIGHTS
DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABD RAZAK v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS [2026] 2 CLJ 385
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ALICE LOKE YEE CHING J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: WA-25-136-04-2024]
22 DECEMBER 2025
(i) The exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy is not absolute and must be performed within the legal framework provided by the Federal Constitution ('FC'). Specifically, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong cannot act independently and His Majesty cannot decide on matters of pardon, reprieve or respite independently of the Pardons Board; (ii) An order for house arrest purportedly made under the royal prerogative of mercy is invalid if it is not deliberated at a formal meeting of the Pardons Board, as required by art. 42 of the FC . A writ of mandamus to compel such an order will not lie if the order itself is procedurally flawed or if there is no existing legal framework to execute the specific terms, ie, house arrest of that order.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal Constitution - Royal prerogative - Reduction of sentence and fine by Yang di-Pertuan Agong ('YDPA') - Allegation of addendum order for house arrest - Whether YDPA could exercise power of mercy independently of Pardons Board - Whether addendum order deliberated at Pardons Board Meeting - Whether mandatory procedural requirements under art. 42 of Federal Constitution complied with - Whether non-compliance with procedure rendered addendum order invalid
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal Constitution - Yang di-Pertuan Agong ('YDPA') - Powers - Prerogative of mercy - Scope of art. 42 of Federal Constitution - Functions of Pardons Board - Whether YDPA bound to consider advice of Pardons Board and opinion of Attorney General - Whether distinction exists between pardon, reprieve and respite regarding procedural requirements - Whether 'respite' could be granted outside Pardons Board Meeting
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Mandamus - Application to compel respondents to execute house arrest order - Whether order valid - Whether respondents under legal duty to obey order - Whether there was legal framework or mechanism for house arrest in Malaysia - Whether house arrest order capable of execution
JUDICIAL QUOTES
“[89] according to the cases which had applied the second approach, r. 7(3A) of the RCA is considered to have embodied the three cumulative conditions (Ladd). I agree that r. 7(3A)(a) RCA has provided for the first condition (Ladd). Having said that ... (v) in view of the conflicting cases (please refer to the above para. [87] and the possible injustice caused by r. 7(3A)(b) of the RCA (as explained in the above sub-para. (iv)), time is ripe for law reform as follows:
(a) our legislature should incorporate the three cumulative conditions (Ladd) in s. 69(3) of the CJA with regard to existent evidence; and
(b) the entire r. 7 of the RCA, in particular r. 7(3A)(b) of the RCA, should be repealed by the Rules committee.”
“I end this judgment with a plea for law reform as proposed in the above sub-para. [89](v).” - Per Azimah Omar JCA in Cempaka Mewah Sdn Bhd v. Pengarah Ukur Dan Pemetaan Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus [2025] 10 CLJ 695; [2025] CLJU 2455
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2025] CLJU 258
|
PP v. AZRIL SANI RAMUDIN
1. Conduct of accused persons at point of raid and arrest is pivotal. Refusal of the accused persons to come out of the car which led to the raiding team to use force to break open the window of the car to eject the accused persons and the subsequent scuffle between the accused with the raiding team members are evidence that could assist the Court to arrive at a finding in order to determine the state of mind of the accused persons pursuant to s. 8(2) of the Evidence Act 1950. That evidence also lends proof of the common intention of the accused persons.
2. Finding on the mental state of knowledge, or rebuttal of it, is an inference to be drawn by the trial judge from all the facts and circumstances of the case, with due weight accorded to credibility of the witnesses called by the prosecution to support its case.
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs - Trafficking - Common intention - Drugs found inside bag on car’s front passenger seat floor - Accused persons were driver and passenger seated on front passenger seat - Whether mens rea possession proven - Whether presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) and (xvi) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 invoked - Whether ingredients of offence proven - Whether prima facie case established - Whether accused in physical possession of drug
EVIDENCE: Conduct - Conduct of accused - State of mind - Accused persons refused to cooperate with raiding team - Use of force to eject both accused out of car - Scuffle ensured between raiding team and accused persons - Whether means rea possession of drug proven affirmatively through conduct of accused - Evidence Act 1950, s. 8(2)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Denial - Offence of possession of dangerous drugs - Drugs found inside car travelled by accused persons - Rented car - Whether driver of car had power to deal with drug - Whether passenger of car successfully raised reasonable doubt - Whether driver of car was in mens rea possession of drug
- For the prosecution - DPP Nur Aqilah Ishak, Attorney General Chambers
- For the first accused - Mohd Zailani Meli & Lejerod Limpuong; M/s Yaacob Mentol, Zamani & Associates
- For the second accused - Azmi Talib; M/s Aidil Effendy Azmi & Co
|
|
[2025] CLJU 260
|
WYNN RESORTS (MACAU) S.A. v. POH YANG HONG & ORS
1. A charging order is one of the mechanisms available to a judgment creditor to enforce a judgment. Pursuant to O. 50 r 2 of the Rules of Court 2012, a judgment creditor may apply to Court for a charging order to impose a charge on securities such as shares, bonds or dividends owned by the judgment debtor. As such, a judgment creditor can apply to the Court to have a charge placed over shares if the cases may be. The effect of the charging order is that when the shares are sold, the judgment creditor is paid out in priority to other creditors from the proceeds of sale.
2. A judgment creditor having obtained a charging order nisi in respect of shares of a company, could apply to the Court to declare null and void the transfer of the shares which is in breach of the charging order nisi and thereafter apply for rectification of the register of members pursuant to s. 103 of the Companies Act 2016.
COMPANY LAW: Register of members - Rectification - Application by aggrieved person - Wrongful and invalid transfer of shares - Breach of charging order nisi - Whether court had jurisdiction and power to rectify register of members - Whether there was wrongful and invalid transfer of shares - Whether defendant committed breach of charging order nisi - Whether defendant's breach caused prejudice to plaintiff - Companies Act 2016, s. 103
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment and orders - Execution of judgment - Charging order - Breach of charging order nisi and charging order absolute - Whether there was violation of valid court order - Whether judgment creditor could apply to court to declare transfer of shares which was in breach of charging order nisi as null and void
- For the plaintiff - Lai Wing Ee; M/s Jeff Leong, Poon & Wong
- For the 1st defendant - Raiza Zakaria; M/s Albar & Partners
- For the 2nd and 3rd defendants - Aw Kai Xiang; M/s Tuang, Chu & Co
- For SSM - Rudaini Abdullah
|
|
[2025] CLJU 263
|
BOO v. YOO
1. The doctrine of tender years operates on the presumption that young children, particularly those below the age of seven, are best cared for by their mother due to her natural caregiving role. This principle reflects the belief that the mother is generally better equipped to meet the emotional and developmental needs of a young child. However, it must be emphasised that while the doctrine of tender years offers an initial presumption in favour of maternal custody for young children, the overarching principle guiding the Court remains the welfare of the child. Should circumstances arise where the mother's custody is determined to be contrary to the child's best interests, the Court will set aside the presumption and make a decision that ensures the child's safety, stability, and development.
2. Children often form deep emotional connections with caregivers, friends, and familiar surroundings. Displacement can disrupt these bonds, causing emotional distress and feelings of abandonment. Removing a child from this environment can result in feelings of insecurity, fear, and uncertainty. The process of relocation or displacement can induce stress, anxiety, or even trauma, particularly if the change is abrupt or involves conflict.
3. A child's well-being is closely linked to a sense of routine, consistency, and security. Frequent moves may disrupt the child's emotional and psychological development, making it difficult to establish a stable routine, build long-term relationships, and develop a sense of belonging.
FAMILY LAW: Children - Custody - Application by plaintiff wife - Doctrine of tender years - Child remained with defendant husband's parents' house - Child resided with defendant on weekdays and spent weekends with plaintiff - Welfare of child - Instability and uncertainty in living arrangements - Whether court could set aside presumption of doctrine of tender years - Whether presumption in s. 88(3) of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 rebutted - Whether plaintiff had financial stability and emotional readiness necessary to assume custody, care and control of child - Whether plaintiff in best position to take on primary role of raising child - Whether defendant an absent father
FAMILY LAW: Children - Access - Liberal access - Custody, care and control of child awarded to defendant husband - Whether appropriate to grant plaintiff wide liberal access to maintain relationship with child - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 89
FAMILY LAW: Children - Guardianship - Equality of parental rights - Custody, care and control of child awarded to defendant husband - Whether guardianship should remain joint - Whether joint guardianship would uphold child's inherent right to maintain consistent and meaningful relationship with both parents - Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, s. 5
FAMILY LAW: Children - Maintenance - Custody, care and control of child awarded to defendant husband - Whether defendant obliged to pay child maintenance - Whether defendant should bear full financial responsibility - Whether defendant should provide monthly contribution to support plaintiff wife's involvement in child's life during access periods
- For the plaintiff - Goh Loh Boon & Wong Yee Fung; M/s WH Kan
- For the defendant - Sonia Shah & Ooi Wei Neng; M/s Sonia Shah & Co
|
|
[2025] CLJU 280
|
MOHAMED JALALUDEEN ARIFF v. SERI PACIFIC CORPORATION SDN BHD
1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is engaged only when reinstatement is specifically sought as a remedy. Claims involving monetary compensation alone, without a plea for reinstatement, do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.
2. There is a clear distinction between contractual claims and claims for wrongful dismissal. Contractual disputes concerning entitlements agreed upon between the parties do not engage the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. Where an employee seeks enforcement of specific contractual rights rather than remedies for dismissal, the proper forum remains with the Civil Courts.
3. The mere fact that a dispute involves an employment context does not, in itself, preclude the Civil Courts from adjudicating the matter. Where a claim is based on contractual entitlements rather than allegations of dismissal, the appropriate forum remains with the Civil Courts.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Jurisdiction - Claim for salary deductions and reduction in EPF contributions imposed during Covid-19 pandemic - Defendant alleged claim involved wrongful dismissal and within exclusive jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Whether plaintiff sought reinstatement as part of claim - Whether claim arising from breaches of employment contract and claim for termination of contract or wrongful dismissal separate and distinct - Whether there were triable issues which required proper adjudication - Whether claim plainly and obviously unsustainable
- For the appellant - V. Rajadevan; M/s Rajadevan & Assoc.
- For the respondent - Wong Keat Ching & Teoh Alvare; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
|
|
[2025] CLJU 273
|
WAN FADZILAH WAN HASSAN & YANG LAIN lwn. KELANA KUALITI SDN BHD
Di dalam permohonan penghakiman terus, plaintif perlu memenuhi keperluan awalan untuk penghakiman terus termasuk menentusahkan fakta yang menjadi asas kepada tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan. Beban adalah terletak pada plaintif untuk menentusahkan fakta tersebut di dalam afidavit sokongan. Walaupun di peringkat ini plaintif tidak dikehendaki membuktikan fakta yang menjadi asas tuntutannya namun plaintif dikehendaki menunjukkan fakta material yang secara prima facie menyokong kausa tindakan plaintif supaya wujud keadaan yang membolehkan penghakiman diberikan kepada plaintif. Jika ini dicapai maka beban berpindah kepada defendan untuk menunjukkan sebab-sebab penghakiman tidak sepatutnya diberikan. Dalam hal ini defendan dikehendaki menunjukkan bahawa terdapat isu atau persoalan yang dipertikaikan yang patut dibicarakan atau kerana sesuatu sebab yang lain perbicaraan patut diadakan mengenai tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan.
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman terus - Kontrak - Kemungkiran tanggungjawab kontraktual dan fidusiari - Tindakan oleh pemaju hartanah terhadap ejen hartanah berhubung tuntutan dan pernerimaan bayaran komisyen secara salah - Sama ada keperluan awalan untuk penghakiman terus dipenuhi - Sama ada plaintif menentusahkan fakta yang menjadi asas kepada tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan - Sama ada surat pelantikan membuktikan secara prima facie suatu hubungan kontraktual antara plaintif dan defendan - Sama ada persoalan berkenaan pelantikan defendan dijelaskan di dalam afidavit sokongan plaintif
- Bagi pihak Peguam Perayu-Perayu - Chen Hui Ken; T/n Jec Siose & Co
- Bagi pihak Peguam Responden - Shahir Abdul Razak & Nadia Farihan; T/n Shahir Khubayb & Co
|
CLJ 2026 Volume 2 (Part 2)
(i) The powers of a liquidator to administer and carry on the business of a company following the commencement of liquidation are expressly provided in para. 1(a) of Part II of the Twelfth Schedule, read together with s. 486 of the Companies Act 2016 ('CA'). Upon his appointment, the liquidator is legally entitled to carry on the business of the company for up to 180 days from the date of the winding-up order, and any further continuation requires the express sanction of the court or the committee of inspection; (ii) The circumstances under which an order for the release and discharge of a liquidator may be revoked are expressly stipulated in s. 491(4) of the CA. The court should be slow to interfere with any act or decision of the liquidators in discharging their roles in company liquidation and should only do so if it is so unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable person would have acted in that way.
Victor Saw Seng Kee (As Joint Liquidator Of London Biscuits Bhd (In Liquidation)) v. Wong Weng Foo & Co & Anor And Other Appeals [2026] 2 CLJ 167 [FC]
COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Liquidators - Powers of - Provisions of para. 1(a) of Part II of Twelfth Schedule , read together with s. 486 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether liquidator could carry on business of company in liquidation beyond date of winding-up order - Whether court sanction required - Whether liquidator exercised powers reasonably - Whether exercise of powers benefited creditors
COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Liquidators - Application for release and discharge of roles in company liquidation - Whether reasonable - Whether granting of release order operates as conclusive evidence of due performance of duties of liquidator - Whether liquidator obtained release order by fraud - Whether appellate interference warranted - Companies Act 2016, ss. 491(4) & 527(1)
Abu Bakar Jais PCA
Hasnah Mohammed Hashim CJ (Malaya)
Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh FCJ
(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-61-12-2024)
- For the appellant - Christopher Leong, Jacky Loi, Calvin Wong, Vivian Lim & Lim Jin Wen; M/s TY Teh & Partners
- For the 1st respondent - Steven Tan Chee Qian, Max Chuah Chern Tee & Low Han Shin; M/s Chuah Qian & Partners
- For the 2nd respondent - Lim Chee Wee, Kwan Will Sen, Pang Huey Lynn & Manveer Singh Bagry; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership
(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-62-12-2024)
- For the appellant - Lim Chee Wee, Kwan Will Sen, Pang Huey Lynn & Manveer Singh Bagry; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership
- For the respondent - Steven Tan Chee Qian, Max Chuah Chern Tee & Low Han Shin; M/s Chuah Qian & Partners
- For the interveners HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd, Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd, United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd, Malaysian Trustees Bhd & Bangkok Bank Bhd - Benjamin John Dawson, Koh San Tee & Nor Syazana Jamaluddin; M/s Benjamin Dawson
- For the interveners Malayan Banking Bhd & OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd - Ng Hooi Huang, Lim Jia Wing & Tan Wey May; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
(Civil Appeal Nos: 02(f)-63-12-2024 & 02(f)-64-12-2024)
- For the appellant - Rabindra S Nathan, Sathya Kumardas, Saresh Mahendaren, Mohammed Daud Sulaiman & Chew Mingyih; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
- For the respondent - Steven Tan Chee Qian, Max Chuah Chern Tee & Low Han Shin; M/s Chuah Qian & Partners
In the assessment of an award of compensation for acquisition of land, damages sustained or likely to be sustained must be assessed at the time of the Land Administrator's taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition. If a damage did not arise from a land acquisition, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of injurious affection as it would only be relevant to be determined if the applicant is able to establish that the damage suffered resulted from the Land Administrator's possession of the land pursuant to the acquisition. Losses arising outside the scope of the acquisition falls beyond the jurisdiction of a land reference proceeding.
Afeef Abdulqader Mansoor v. Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Lumpur [2026] 2 CLJ 189 [CA]
LAND LAW
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Award of compensation - Whether adequate - Building on land demolished due to landslide before acquisition - Whether applicant ought to be compensated for building erected on land before occurrence of landslide - Whether applicant's loss as result of landslide considered as injurious affection - Whether damage sustained by reason of acquisition - Losses arose outside scope of acquisition - Whether fell beyond jurisdiction of proceedings - Whether extent of damage and losses could be properly ascertained and assessed - Land Acquisition Act 1960
Azman Abdullah JCA
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
Alwi Abdul Wahab JCA
- For the appellant - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah & Magdalene Wong Sui Hua; M/s Shafee & Co
- For the respondent - Iskandar Zulkarnaen Che Mohd Nor & Nurul Atikah Asharaf Ali; SFCs
(i) The 'right to appeal' under s. 31(1) of the Medical Act 1971 ('MA') is strictly limited. It applies only to the registered person, ie, the doctor/medical professional, against whom a disciplinary order was made by the Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC'). It does not extend to the failed complainant, as they are not the 'person who is aggrieved by the order'; (ii) The dismissal of a complaint by the MMC does not constitute a disciplinary order that can be appealed against under Part IV of the MA. The proper avenue for a failed complainant to challenge such a dismissal is through an application for judicial review.
Dr Geoffrey Alan Williams v. Dr Tikfu Gee & Anor [2026] 2 CLJ 207 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
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)
Supang Lian JCA
Azimah Omar JCA
Noorin Badaruddin JCA
- For the appellant - Tommy Thomas, Ravi Nekoo, Sarah Anthony & Arvinkumar Mohan; M/s Asta, Sathiya & Partners
- For the 1st respondent - Aw Ee Va; M/s Chan Ban Eng & Co
- For the 2nd respondent - Jessica Ram Binwani & Navina Ramani; M/s Kanesh Sundrum & Co
A settlement agreement and its accompanying documents, in this case a memorandum of agreement, executed contemporaneously to resolve an employment dispute constitute a single transaction. Consequently, a broad waiver of 'all claims' contained therein is valid and enforceable provided there is consideration for the transaction as a whole; such an agreement does not violate public policy unless it expressly stifles public prosecution, and it effectively bars the signatory from subsequently initiating any civil or criminal proceedings arising from the same factual matrix.
BRB Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Bimal Pillai [2026] 2 CLJ 222 [HC]
CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Agreement - Settlement agreement - Dispute between employer and employee - Validity - Contemporaneous execution of settlement agreement and memorandum of agreement - Terms of settlement agreement provided for employee's waiver of 'all claims' against employer in exchange for payment of substantial sums to employee - Whether documents formed single transaction - Whether separate consideration required for each document - Whether settlement agreements void for want of consideration - Whether settlement sum supported entire transaction
CONTRACT: Agreement - Settlement agreement - Dispute between employer and employee - Validity - Contemporaneous execution of settlement agreement and memorandum of agreement - Terms of settlement agreements provided for employee's waiver of 'all claims' against employer in exchange for payment of substantial sums to employee - Employee commenced civil and criminal proceedings against employer after receiving sums promised under settlement agreement - Whether there was breach of agreements - Whether agreements void - Whether there was consideration - Whether there was undue influence and economic duress - Whether agreements tainted with fraud and illegality and against public policy - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 16(2) & 24
- For the plaintiff - Joshua Teoh Beni Chris & Anna Tan Ling Er; M/s Skrine
- For the defendant - Nurul Athirah Hairol Nizal; M/s Qing Chambers
The requirements for sanction under s. 366 of the Companies Act 2016 ('Act') are fully met when: (i) there are properly convened separate meetings for each company and creditor class in compliance with statutory requirements; (ii) there is fair representation; (iii) the proposed schemes are reasonable; and (iv) when there is a careful balance of the competing interests at stake. Such thorough and methodical approach reinforces the overall integrity of the schemes, and supports the conclusion that the restructuring has been pursued in good faith and in accordance with the objectives of the Act.
Sapura Energy Bhd & Ors v. CIMB Bank Bhd & Ors [2026] 2 CLJ 264 [HC]
COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Scheme of arrangement - Sanction and approval of court - Application for - Whether separate meetings properly convened in compliance with statutory requirements - Whether there was fair representation - Whether proposed schemes reasonable - Balancing of interests - Whether restructuring pursued in good faith - Whether requirements for sanction under s. 366 of Companies Act 2016 satisfied
Wan Muhammad Amin Wan Yahya J
- For the applicants - Gopal Sreenevasan, Azman Othman Luk, Jack Yow Pit Pin, Leong Phaik Leng, Kwong Chiew Ee, Neoh Jin Keat, Melvin Ng Yet Ting, Woon Yu Jian & Low Zhe Ning; M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners
- For the 1st to 4th respondents - Eddie Chuah Seong Eng & Rachel Tey Mei Yee; M/s Wong & Partners
- For the 15th respondent - Melanie Lim Sheng Ning; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
- For the 18th respondent - Vincent Vijayan S Appadurai; M/s Vijayan & Co
An act amounting to misconduct within the terms of the Rules of a Club, is subject to disciplinary proceedings, regardless of whether the member who committed the misconduct is one who holds the position in the management committee of the club or just an ordinary member. No one can attempt to evade accountability merely on the grounds that the complaint of misconduct is not against the member personally as a member but against the member in his position in the committee.
Vasan P Sinnadurai v. Dato’ Sri Dr Lee Ville (Didakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Kelab Renang Pulau Pinang) & Anor [2026] 2 CLJ 283 [HC]
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS: Clubs - Disciplinary proceedings - Complaint against management committee of club ('MC') leading to charge against Vice-President ('VC') of club - Whether charge within rules of club - Jurisdiction of disciplinary committee ('DC') - Whether complaint could form subject of disciplinary action against VC - Whether MC or its members immune from investigation - Whether MC only answerable to general body at AGM/EGM - Whether DC has power to decide on charges and recommend punishment - Whether VC given right of hearing by DC
- For the plaintiff - M Yunus Ali & Yeoh Wen De; M/s Yunus Ali & Kam
- For the 1st defendant - Karin Lim Ai Ching, A Suppiah & Nicholas Lim; M/s Presgrave & Matthews
- For the 2nd defendant - V Amareson; M/s Amareson & Meera
ARTICLES
CLJ Article(s)
-
PRIVITY, COMMERCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS, AND THE CASE AGAINST THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS LEGISLATION
[Read excerpt]
by Prof Dr Jason Chuah* [2026] 2 CLJ(A) i
[2026] 2 CLJ(A) i
MALAYSIA
PRIVITY, COMMERCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS, AND THE CASE AGAINST THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS LEGISLATION
by
Prof Dr Jason Chuah*
Part I - The Temptation Of Low-Hanging Fruit
Legal reform projects are often driven as much by optics as by necessity. Faced with the complexity of modern private law, reformers frequently gravitate towards what appears easiest to harvest rather than what most requires cultivation. In contract law, few issues present themselves as more conveniently accessible than privity and third-party rights. It is doctrinally familiar, rhetorically attractive, and - at first glance - seemingly ripe for correction. In this sense, third-party contract rights are often treated as the low-hanging fruit of reform: highly visible, widely discussed, and apparently capable of delivering quick symbolic gains.
Yet low-hanging fruit is not always nutritious. Sometimes it hangs low precisely because it has already been examined, tested, and deliberately left in place. The history of privity in common law systems, including Malaysia's, suggests that its continued survival is not the product of neglect but of sustained judicial scrutiny and practical accommodation. Over time, courts and commercial actors have developed a dense network of exceptions, workarounds, and private-ordering mechanisms that mitigate hardship without disturbing the structural foundations of contract law.
. . .
LNS Article(s)
-
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF MEDICAL REPORTING PRACTICES IN MALAYSIA: MEDICAL RECORDS AND MEDICAL REPORTS
[Read excerpt]
by Nurul Atiqah binti Abd Rahman* [2026] CLJU(A) xv
[2026] CLJU(A) xv
MALAYSIA
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF MEDICAL REPORTING PRACTICES IN MALAYSIA:
MEDICAL RECORDS AND MEDICAL REPORTS
by
Nurul Atiqah binti Abd Rahman*
INTRODUCTION TO MEDICAL REPORTING PRACTICES IN MALAYSIA
An essential component of a doctor's responsibilities when treating patients is maintaining medical records. A medical record is an extensive, thorough, and continuous record of a patient's medical history, treatments and other health-related information kept by healthcare professionals. Medical records will constitute a permanent record of the patient's health conditions. This systematic upkeep is carried out daily, indicating continuity of care and any progression resulting from treatments. Keeping thorough and accurate medical records guarantees that patients' demands are satisfied and facilitates easy communication between patients and medical staff.[1]
CONTENTS OF MEDICAL RECORDS
The medical record provides details to help identify a patient by containing information about the patient's case history. This comprises a wide range of "notes" that medical experts have entered throughout time, including recording observations and administration of drugs and therapies, orders for the administration of drugs and therapies, test results, x-ray reports, etc.
THE IMPORTANCE OF MEDICAL RECORDS
Medical records enable medical professionals to ascertain the patient's medical background and deliver well-informed treatment. It serves as a "central repository" for planning patient care and documenting correspondence between the patient and healthcare provider, and any other professionals involved in the treatment. Moreover, health care providers agree that the medical record is a vital and essential supplement to medical education and treatment.
. . .
-
ADVOCACY IN THE COURTROOM: PERSPECTIVES FROM MALAYSIA
[Read excerpt]
by Subash Ramasamy* [2026] CLJU(A) xvi
[2026] CLJU(A) xvi
MALAYSIA
ADVOCACY IN THE COURTROOM: PERSPECTIVES FROM MALAYSIA
by Subash Ramasamy*
ABSTRACT
Lawyers shape justice with every word they speak; words alone cannot guarantee a favourable verdict in court. Spoken words must be intertwined with good advocacy skills. This article focuses on the features of good advocacy in the courtroom by referring to the Malaysian perspective, with the assistance of the observations made by the courts here. For lawyers, good advocacy skills are their stock in trade. Law speaks; lawyers amplify. A lawyer's craft is best improved through active practice and hands-on experience. There is no substitute for that.
WHAT IS A GOOD ADVOCACY?
Good advocacy is a cornerstone of the administration of justice and is a blend of thorough preparation, persuasion, strategic communication, and professional conduct. It is about crafting a clear, concise and compelling version that persuades the judge to return the verdict in one client's favour.
Further, good advocacy requires the lawyer to study the facts, the law and the judge. The hallmarks of good advocacy are ''brevity, accuracy, lucidity and keeping to the point''.[1]
Let us examine those hallmarks.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
| Number |
Title |
In force from |
Repealed |
Superseded |
| ACT 877 |
Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2026 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 876 |
Anti-Bully Act 2026 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 875 |
Measures for the Collection, Administration and Enforcement of Tax Act 2025 |
Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 6; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 14; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 31 and the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 41 |
- |
- |
| ACT 874 |
Finance Act 2025 |
Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 19; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 25; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 31 and the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 33 |
- |
- |
| ACT 873 |
Consumer Credit Act 2025 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
|
