| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #15/2026
09 April 2026
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New This Week
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE SPOTLIGHTS
PUNCAK GALI HARMONI SDN BHD v. EMRAIL SDN BHD [2026] 4 CLJ 151 The moratorium under s. 410(c) of the Companies Act 2016 ('CA') applies to all forms of judicial process, whether interlocutory, ancillary or substantive in nature. The legislative intent of s. 410(c) of the CA is to preserve the status and assets of the company under judicial management from any legal process, regardless of whether it arises from litigation or arbitration. As this moratorium is mandatory and operates immediately upon the filing of the judicial management application, no proceedings may be commenced or continued without the leave of the court. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Ex parte injunction - Company under judicial management proceeding - Effect of - Whether moratorium under s. 410(c) of Companies Act 2016 mandatory - Whether operates immediately upon filing of judicial management application - Whether proceeding may only be commenced with judicial management court - Whether failure to obtain leave constitutes jurisdictional defect - Whether injunction application incompetent and liable to be struck out CONTRACT: Business and schemes - Judicial management order - Application for injunction pending judicial management proceeding - Whether moratorium under s. 410(c) of Companies Act 2016 mandatory - Whether operates immediately upon filing of judicial management application - Whether proceeding may only be commenced with judicial management court - Whether failure to obtain leave constitutes jurisdictional defect - Whether injunction application incompetent and liable to be struck out JUDICIAL QUOTES“Both counsel brought to bear considerable industry and skill in navigating what is, at its heart, a modest domestic dispute but one which raised questions of some technical and statutory complexity. Their written and oral submissions were thorough and well-crafted, their cross-examinations were pointed without being discourteous, and the quiet wit that each occasionally introduced into the proceedings, not least when this Court itself had cause to observe the alarming pace of inflation in kitchen cabinet prices and the law of Newton's physics, served as a timely reminder that the pursuit of justice need not always be a humourless endeavour. This Court is grateful for their assistance.” - Per Roz Mawar Rozain J in Leng Wie Mun v. Saeed Ali Magad [2026] CLJU 663 APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 3 (Part 5) (i) Article 4(2) of the Federal Constitution ('FC') does not derogate from art. 4(1) of the FC in establishing the FC as the supreme law of the Federation. As such, constitutional supremacy remains the cornerstone of the FC. What art. 4(2) of the FC does, however, is to limit the ability of the courts to question or challenge Parliament's intention or judgment that any restriction imposed on the right to freedom of speech and expression under art. 10(1)(a) of the FC was 'necessary or expedient' for the specified grounds set out in art. 10(2)(a) of the FC. This means that it is open to a court to still judicially review the impugned legislation to ascertain whether it falls within those specified grounds set out in art. 10(2)(a) of the FC and referenced in art. 4(2) of the FC; (ii) The words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in s. 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 are not unconstitutional, in that, the impugned words (a) do not contravene art. 10(1)(a) of the FC; and (b) fall within the purview of a permitted restriction under art. 10(2)(a) of the FC. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | CYBER LAW | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION | WORDS & PHRASES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Freedom of speech and expression - Social media posting - Social media user charged with making and initiating transmission of offensive comments with intent to annoy others - Offence under s. 233(1)(a) of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 ('CMA') - Challenge to constitutionality of s. 233(1)(a) of CMA - Interpretation of art. 4(1) read together with art. 4(2) of Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether words 'offensive' and 'annoy' inconsistent with arts. 10(1)(a) and 10(2)(a) of FC - Whether words fell within permitted restrictions CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: undamental liberties - Freedom of speech and expression - Restriction - Social media user charged with making and initiating transmission of offensive comments with intent to annoy others - Offence under s. 233(1)(a) of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 ('CMA') - Challenge to constitutionality of s. 233(1)(a) of CMA - Scope of art. 10(1)(a) of Federal Constitution - Whether statements of fact and opinions on public health conditions protected speech CYBER LAW: Improper use of network facilities - Social media posting - Offensive speech in social media posting - Social media user charged with making and initiating transmission of offensive comments with intent to annoy others - Offence under s. 233(1)(a) of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 - Whether impugned words 'offensive' and 'annoy' constitutional - Whether consistent with art. 10(1)(a) of Federal Constitution STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, s. 233(1)(a) - Interpretation of 'offensive' and 'annoy' - Application of 'core-penumbra' narrowing construction - Whether focus should be on mens rea rather than actus reus - Whether provision criminalises situational intent rather than content WORDS & PHRASES: 'offensive' and 'annoy' - Meaning of - Offensive comments - Social media user charged with making and initiating transmission of offensive comments with intent to annoy others - Offence under s. 233(1)(a) of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 - Whether impugned words constitutional Wan Ahmad Farid Salleh CJ
Apabila notis Borang 7A telah dikeluarkan secara sah, bawah s. 128 Kanun Tanah Negara ('KTN'), dan pemilik tanah gagal mematuhi atau memperbaiki pelanggaran tersebut dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan, Pentadbir Tanah mempunyai kewajipan undang-undang untuk mengeluarkan notis Borang 7B. Tindakan tersebut bukan satu budi bicara mutlak tetapi satu tatacara mandatori yang ditetapkan oleh s. 129 KTN. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hak milik - Syarat nyata - Pelanggaran syarat nyata tanah - Syarat nyata menetapkan tanah harus digunakan untuk bangunan bertingkat bagi tujuan perdagangan - Tanah didapati mempunyai bengkel dan kawasan belukar - Pentadbir Tanah mengeluarkan notis Borang 7A dan kemudian notis Borang 7B pada pemohon - Sama ada tindakan Pentadbir Tanah sah dan munasabah - Sama ada notis Borang 7A dan 7B yang dikeluarkan sah dan berkuat kuasa - Kanun Tanah Negara, ss. 128 & 129
Manira Mohd Nor PK
Dalam pengendalian kerja-kerja yang melibatkan laluan jalan raya, syarikat kontraktor sewajarnya memastikan terdapat tanda amaran diletakkan sebagai memberi peringatan kepada pengguna-pengguna jalan raya supaya berhati-hati bagi mengelakkan risiko kemalangan kerana terdapat objek atau penghadang jalan. Kegagalan berbuat demikian membawa pada dapatan bahawa syarikat kontraktor cuai dalam melaksanakan tugas berhati-hatinya. Jika risiko kemalangan di lokasi tapak projek yang dikendalikan oleh syarikat kontraktor boleh diramal dengan munasabah, dan kemalangan dan kecederaan yang dialami oleh pengguna jalan raya adalah disebabkan oleh kegagalan syarikat kontraktor melaksanakan tugas berhati-hatinya, maka pengguna jalan raya yang tercedera boleh memohon ganti rugi am dan khas. Mahkamah akan mengambil kira keseriusan kecederaan dan implikasi teruk yang berterusan. TORT | LALU LINTAS JALAN | GANTI RUGI
TORT: Kecuaian - Lalu lintas jalan - Kemalangan - Motosikal pihak ketiga terlanggar penghadang jalan yang diletakkan oleh defendan pertama semasa pengendalian kerja-kerja pengorekan tanah - Plaintif sebagai pembonceng motosikal mengalami kecederaan kekal dan menjadi orang kelainan upaya - Sama ada plaintif terlibat dalam kemalangan sebagaimana diplidkan - Sama ada defendan pertama mempunyai tugas berhati-hati dalam memastikan pengguna jalan raya terlindung daripada bahaya - Sama ada defendan pertama, kedua dan ketiga cuai dalam mengendalikan penghadang jalan tanpa amaran mencukupi - Sama ada kemalangan boleh diramal dengan munasabah berlaku - Sama ada defendan kedua dan ketiga mempunyai kawalan dan penyeliaan terhadap kerja-kerja defendan pertama - Sama ada pihak ketiga cuai dalam menunggang motosikal dan mengakibatkan kemalangan - Sama ada pihak ketiga bertanggungan bersama atau cuai sumbang menyebabkan kecederaan yang dialami plaintif - Sama ada plaintif membuktikan kerugian - Sama ada plaintif berhak terhadap ganti rugi am dan khas LALU LINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan - Motosikal pihak ketiga terlanggar penghadang jalan yang diletakkan oleh defendan pertama untuk kerja-kerja pengorekan tanah - Plaintif sebagai pembonceng motosikal mengalami kecederaan kekal dan menjadi orang kelainan upaya ('OKU') - Sama ada plaintif terlibat dalam kemalangan sebagaimana diplidkan - Sama ada defendan pertama mempunyai tugas berhati-hati dalam memastikan pengguna jalan raya terlindung daripada bahaya - Sama ada defendan pertama, kedua dan ketiga cuai dalam mengendalikan penghadang jalan tanpa amaran mencukupi - Sama ada kemalangan boleh diramal dengan munasabah berlaku - Sama ada defendan kedua dan ketiga mempunyai kawalan dan penyeliaan terhadap kerja-kerja defendan pertama - Sama ada pihak ketiga cuai dalam menunggang motosikal dan mengakibatkan kemalangan - Sama ada pihak ketiga bertanggungan bersama atau cuai sumbang menyebabkan kecederaan yang dialami plaintif - Sama ada plaintif membuktikan kerugian - Sama ada plaintif berhak terhadap ganti rugi am dan khas GANTI RUGI: Taksiran - Ganti rugi am dan khas - Kemalangan melibatkan motosikal terlanggar penghadang jalan raya yang diletakkan semasa pengendalian kerja-kerja pengorekan tanah - Plaintif mengalami kecederaan kekal dan menjadi orang kelainan upaya ('OKU') - Keseriusan kecederaan dan implikasi teruk yang berterusan dialami plaintif - Kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan - Kos penjagaan - Kos rawatan susulan Hazizah Kassim PK
Salary scales not issued as a result of the Government of Malaysia's salary revisions do not trigger an adjustment of pensions. Consequently, the challenge - alleging that the Government's failure to adjust the Malaysian Armed Forces pensioners' pensions in accordance with the Regular Forces (Pensions, Gratuities and Other Benefits) Regulations 1982 ('1982 Regulations') resulted in a less favourable position contravening art. 147 of the Federal Constitution - must fail. Evidence demonstrates that pension adjustments have been carried out in accordance with the 1982 Regulations. It is trite law that the precondition of a salary revision is expressly stated in the definition of 'current salary scale' under reg. 51 of the 1982 Regulations, which refers to the most recent salary scale applicable in the event of a salary revision by the Government of Malaysia. CIVIL PROCEDURE | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Mode of action - Originating summons - Action by Malaysian Armed Forces pensioners - Claim for adjustment of pensions - Whether action fell within realm of public law - Whether should have proceeded by way of judicial review - Whether challenge against decision-making processes - Whether issues related to construction of law and legal documentation - Whether action properly commenced ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Public servants - Pensions - Malaysian Armed Forces pensioners - Adjustment of pensions - Whether adjustment of pensions carried out in accordance with Regular Forces (Pensions, Gratuities and Other Benefits) Regulations 1982 ('1982 Regulations') - Whether pension amount revised in accordance with salary revisions under reg. 54 of 1982 Regulations - Whether amendments to terms of service of Malaysian Armed Forces after pensioners' retirement not applicable to pensioners' pension adjustment
Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J
(i) While freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution, it must be exercised within the bounds of the law. Although freedom of speech is a constitutional right, it is subject to the laws of defamation and contempt of court. Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution is not a license to slander, profit from slander, or twist court-tendered apologies into content for sensational online videos; (ii) Failure to comply with a court order constitutes plain contempt. Once a contemnor undertakes to purge their contempt via a statement of apology, that apology must be unreserved and remorseful. Any subsequent act that repudiates the apology undermines the dignity and integrity of the court, rendering the contempt unpurged. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Committal proceedings - Proceedings based on postings on social media platforms in breach of earlier injunction against contemnor - Contemnor agreed to post apology on same social media platforms - Whether contempt purged as per court order - Whether postings of apology at unreadable speed and addition of song with intention to ridicule negated apology - Whether choice of words showed total lack of remorse - Whether insincere in apology and attempted to trick court to avoid punishment for contempt - Whether sentence ought to reflect seriousness of offence - Whether warranted sentence of imprisonment
Gan Techiong JC
CLJ 2026 Volume 3 (Part 6) (i) A defendant cannot rely on a company's subsequent winding up to limit the period for the assessment of damages if the defendant's own breach of contract materially contributed to that company's insolvency; (ii) A liability judgment must be interpreted in the context of the compensatory principle, placing the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, and in light of the original pleadings. CONTRACT | DAMAGES
CONTRACT: Agreement - Breach - Joint venture - Management agreement for construction and maintenance of telecommunications towers - Failure to pay maintenance fees - Liability established - Assessment of quantum - Whether subsequent winding up of company limited period of assessment - Whether one company's non-payment contributed to other company's insolvency - Whether winding up avoidable event but for breach DAMAGES: Assessment - Compensatory principle - Account and inquiry - Deductions - Management agreement for construction and maintenance of telecommunications towers - Failure to pay maintenance fees - Liability established - Assessment of quantum - Interpretation of liability judgment in light of pleadings and changed circumstances - Whether assessment should reflect gross revenue or net profit - Whether implied that all costs and expenses in earning revenue must be deducted
Rhodzariah Bujang FCJ
A constructive trust arises by operation of law, irrespective of the intention of the parties. Under such a trust, the trustee acquires the property for the benefit of the beneficiary, making it unconscionable for him to assert his own beneficial interest in the property. The trustee cannot transfer any interest to themselves or to a third party; any appropriation of property held by way of trust and confidence constitutes a breach of trust. The aggrieved party's remedies lie in restitution. CONTRACT | TRUSTS
CONTRACT: Void contracts - Remedies - Sale and purchase of land - Breach - Whether there were elements of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentations - Whether vendor authorised to sell land - Whether payments dissipated by solicitors - Whether monies paid out for purposes other than towards acquisition of land - Whether solicitors breached duty of care - Whether presumption of constructive trust arose against solicitors and such trust breached - Whether contract voidable and liable to be rescinded - Whether monies paid by purchaser to be refunded TRUSTS: Constructive trusts - Creation of - Sale and purchase of land - Whether presumption of constructive trust arose against solicitors - Whether payments dissipated by solicitors - Whether monies paid out for purposes other than towards acquisition of land - Whether solicitors breached duty of care - Whether contract voidable and liable to be rescinded - Whether monies paid by purchaser to be refunded
Azizah Nawawi CJ (Sabah & Sarawak)
Pure economic losses are not recoverable in tort against local authorities or professional bodies, such as the Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC'). This principle applies even when the MMC exercises its function of granting or refusing accreditation for medical degree programmes. Because the MMC performs a public regulatory role with limited resources, prioritising the private financial interests of an individual over the public interest would be unjust and inconsistent with public policy. DAMAGES
DAMAGES: Assessment - Quantum of - Claims for special, general, aggravated and exemplary damages - Operator of higher learning institution incurred substantial expenses during accreditation survey panel visits of its medical degree programmes - Joint Technical Committee unilaterally imposed requirements not prescribed by relevant guidelines and Malaysian Medical Council's past practices - Whether special, general, aggravated and exemplary damages ought to be awarded - Whether claims for pure economic losses ought to be allowed
Azizul Azmi Adnan J
Bank guarantees are, in substance and effect, performance bonds intended to secure the performance of the underlying contract between the parties. Unconscionability constitutes an independent and recognised ground upon which the court may restrain a call on the bank guarantee, provided there is manifest and strong cogent evidence of conduct that is oppressive or lacking in good faith. There must be sufficient evidence to show that the circumstances or conduct are of such a degree as to prick the conscience of a reasonable and sensible man. CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Guarantee - Bank guarantee - Calling on bank guarantee - Whether bank guarantee incorporated terms of letter or award and general terms and conditions of contract - Whether unconditional and payable on demand - Whether absence of terms permitting transfer of bank guarantee to third party rendered call legally unenforceable - Whether call on bank guarantee in retaliation to commencement of adjudication proceedings - Whether oppressive and lacking in good faith - Whether failure to issue notice of default and affording opportunity to rectify before calling on bank guarantee unconscionable CONTRACT: Claims - Reimbursement - Demand for reimbursement of costs - Whether demand substantiated with evidence - Whether bare assertion that expenses incurred insufficient - Whether demand for reimbursement followed by call on bank guarantee amounted to retaliation after commencement of adjudication proceeding
Shahriza Zalina Abdul Shukor JC
(i) There is no power under the Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') or any other statutes for the court to remove the duties and powers of a joint management body – which has been statutorily conferred by s. 21 of the SMA – to manage and collect maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions from parcel owners. The requirement to pay maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions is not dependent on usage of common property. It is a statutory requirement for all parcel owners to pay, irrespective of whether they are owners of commercial units or residential ones within the same development area. Even unsold parcels belonging to developers are subjected to the mandatory requirement of payment of the same maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions – as could be seen in s. 25(2) of the SMA. Statutory powers for the management of strata properties under the SMA cannot be expanded or varied without an amendment to the statute itself. STRATA PROPERTY | CONTRACT
STRATA PROPERTY: Management corporation - Joint management body ('JMB') - Mixed development - Tripartite agreement entered between land proprietor and developers sought to preclude JMB from exercising statutory duties to maintain and manage building - Whether contravened s. 148 of Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether tripartite agreement invalid and unenforceable against JMB - Whether JMB owed statutory duty to maintain and administer common property - Whether JMB entitled to impose backcharges against plaintiff for service charges and sinking funds from date of JMB's establishment until present - Whether power to impose different rates of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for different components of development vested in JMB - Whether JMB empowered to collect payments of maintenance charges and sinking funds by ss. 21 and 25 of Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether barred by s. 6(1)(d) of Limitation Act 1953 - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 17(4) STRATA PROPERTY: Management corporation - Joint management body ('JMB') - Mixed development - Claim for maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions - Rates - Whether JMB entitled to impose backcharges against plaintiff for service charges and sinking funds from date of JMB's establishment until present - Whether power to impose different rates of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for different components of development vested in JMB - Whether JMB empowered to collect payments of maintenance charges and sinking funds by ss. 21 and 25 of Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether barred by s. 6(1)(d) of Limitation Act 1953 - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 17(4) CONTRACT: Agreement - Tripartite agreement - Validity of - Tripartite agreement entered between land proprietor and developers sought to preclude joint management body ('JMB') from exercising statutory duties to maintain and manage building - Whether contravened s. 148 of Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether JMB empowered to collect payments of maintenance charges and sinking funds by ss. 21 and 25 of Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether tripartite agreement invalid and unenforceable against JMB
Gan Techiong JC
(i) A spouse who tolerates adultery may be aware of the adultery but refrains from taking immediate action for personal, emotional, or practical reasons. On the basis of tolerance, allowing an individual to use adultery as grounds for divorce after years of inaction would contradict the principles of justice and accountability; (ii) Spousal maintenance is typically grounded in the notion that one party is in need of support and the other has the means and, to some extent, the responsibility to provide it. A wife cannot, on one hand, assert her financial independence and the husband's lack of contribution, but on the other, claim entitlement to maintenance. Such a position lacks both legal and factual coherence; (iii) Although the nature of a child's relationship with his or her father differs from that with the mother, this distinction does not render the father's rights in respect of the child inferior to those of the mother. A child has the right to maintain an ongoing and meaningful relationship with both parents; (iv) Section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 requires the court to assess both the financial and non-financial contributions of each party when determining the division of matrimonial assets. This assessment must be rooted in fairness, having regard to the actual contributions made by each spouse throughout the marriage. A party who has made no meaningful contribution, financial or otherwise, cannot expect to walk away with an equal share. To do so would not only offend principles of equity but would amount to a perverse reward for indolence and dishonesty. FAMILY LAW
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Spousal maintenance - Cause of irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Allegations of adultery and unreasonable behaviour - Whether established - Whether there was act of tolerance - Absence of timely objection or genuine distress at time events allegedly occurred - Whether past events could be weaponised as justification for breakdown of marital relationship - Means and needs test - Whether satisfied to justify amount of spousal maintenance FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Matrimonial assets - Division - Whether parties entitled to division of assets based on respective claimed contributions - Whether there was basis to grant equal share of matrimonial assets - Principles of equity - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 76 FAMILY LAW: Children - Guardianship - Custody, care and control - Whether joint guardianship and joint custody ought to be granted - Form of access - Obligation to pay child maintenance - Granting of reasonable access to child - Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976, ss. 88, 92 & 93 - Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, s. 3
Evrol Mariette Peters J
Beneficial owners of a property are entitled to intervene in legal proceedings that may affect their right to compensation arising from the acquisition of the land on which their property is situated. Such intervention is permissible even if they were not original parties to the proceedings, particularly when a prior order erroneously directs compensation to a party whose legal interest has been declared void. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Intervention - Application for - Leave to intervene by beneficial owners of property on land subject to compulsory acquisition - Proposed interveners sought to set aside High Court order directing compensation be paid to chargee rather than to beneficial owners - Interveners recognised under s. 16 of Land Acquisition Act 1960 as beneficial owners - Whether leave to intervene ought to be granted - Whether issue of functus officio would bar intervention - Whether failure to file Form N fatal - Rules of Court 2012, O. 2 r. 2, O. 15 r. 6(2) & O. 92 r. 4
Avinder Singh Gill Ranjit Singh JC
ARTICLESCLJ Article(s)
LNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|