| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #35/2026
27 August 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
PHANG LI KOON v. PP [2026] 8 CLJ 44 (i) The constitutional protection against double jeopardy and the statutory plea of autrefois acquit, enshrined in art. 7(2) of the Federal Constitution and s. 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code, do not create a blanket immunity against subsequent prosecutions merely because the new charges stem from the same historical investigation or a broadly related factual background. The prohibition applies strictly to a second prosecution for the same offence; (ii) For the doctrine of issue estoppel to apply in a criminal matter, the precise factual or legal issue raised in the subsequent proceeding must have been distinctly raised, adjudicated, and necessarily determined by the trial court in the earlier proceeding. A discharge and acquittal resulting purely from the prosecution's withdrawal of charges prior to the close of its case, without any judicial adjudication or findings on the specific factual allegations of the subsequent charges, does not satisfy this requirement. Consequently, neither issue estoppel nor res judicata can operate to bar the fresh charges in the absence of a prior determination of those specific issues. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Double jeopardy and autrefois acquit - Accused persons discharged and acquitted in first proceeding following withdrawal of charges by prosecution - Fresh charges preferred in second proceeding arising from same historical investigations - Whether subsequent charges for same offence - Whether fresh charges stemmed from identical facts and transactions - Whether prosecution barred by doctrine of autrefois acquit and constitutional protection against double jeopardy - Federal Constitution, art. 7(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 302(1) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Proceedings - Issue estoppel and res judicata - Accused persons acquitted in first proceeding after prosecution withdrew charges before close of case - Fresh charges preferred in second proceeding arising from same historical investigations - Whether precise factual or legal issues in second proceeding raised and determined in first proceeding - Whether there was prior judicial adjudication on fresh factual issues - Whether doctrines of issue estoppel and res judicata operated to bar subsequent prosecution JUDICIAL QUOTES“The learned High Court Judge, having found the impugned statements to be defamatory and the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comments to be inapplicable, proceeded to order Chord, Kay, and Kalysta to render an apology to Stella based on the language and contents proposed by her.” “It is well-established that the remedies available in an action for defamation are damages (including general and, where appropriate, aggravated or exemplary damages), and in appropriate cases, injunctive relief to restrain further publication. There is, however, no recognised relief under the common law empowering the court to compel a defendant to publish an apology.” “An apology, by its nature, is an expression of contrition and a matter of volition. To compel a party to apologise would be to require the court to dictate the content of speech, and supervise its adequacy and sincerity, which in our view are matters that lie beyond the proper province of judicial determination.” - Per Ong Chee Kwan JCA in Tan Sing How & Ors v. Ng Ze Xuan [2026] 7 CLJ 348 LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 7 (Part 6) The Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 ('Act') serves as a specialised trade defence mechanism to remedy market injuries and implement international treaty obligations, rather than functioning as a generic, revenue-generating tax law. Consequently, the Executive branch possesses no carte blanche authority to impose residual anti-dumping duties via a blanket 'Others' category without first exhausting the mandatory statutory investigations required by the Act. Because strict procedural compliance is a prerequisite to a valid Executive action, any administrative shortcut or procedural misstep will constitute an ultra vires act that triggers judicial review. This statutory rigidity is specifically reflected in s. 28B of the Act, which mandates that when a new exporter or producer enters the market, the investigating authority must conduct an individualised, expedited review to determine a specific dumping margin; during the pendency of this review, the statute explicitly bars the authority from collecting active anti-dumping duties on those imports. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | CUSTOMS & EXCISE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Imposition of anti-dumping duty - Appeal for remission of customs duties - Whether duty imposed under bill of demand in accordance with law - Whether action to categorise goods and impose anti-dumping duty correct - Whether Government given carte balance to impose anti-dumping duties as matter of Executive policy - Whether ADD could be imposed on blanket basis based on a previous or one-off preliminary determination of dumping involving different foreign companies - Whether separate inquiry or expedited review ought to have been conducted - Whether imposition of anti-dumping duty contrary to purpose and object of Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and article VI of General Agreement on Tariff and Trades 1994 CUSTOMS & EXCISE: Duties and taxes - Anti-dumping duty - Imposition of duty - Importation of cellulose cement fibre products from Thailand - Exporter company not expressly listed under Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014 - Customs imposed maximum rate of 31.14% under generic 'Others' category following audit - Whether anti-dumping duty could be imposed on blanket basis based on previous or one-off preliminary determination of dumping involving different foreign companies - Whether separate inquiry or expedited review ought to have been conducted - Whether imposition of anti-dumping duty contrary to purpose and object of Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and article VI of General Agreement on Tariff and Trades 1994 CUSTOMS & EXCISE: Duties and taxes - Anti-dumping duty - Statutory investigation and inquiry - Determination of 'normal value' and 'export price' - Limits of Government policy power - Whether Government given carte balance to impose anti-dumping duties as matter of Executive policy - Whether there ought to have been expedited review for individual anti-dumping duty rate to be ascertained - Rights of exporters who did not export merchandise during period of investigation - Whether there was statutory bar on imposing duties during pendency of expedited review - Whether blanket imposition under generic 'Others' category for imports occurring years after original gazetted order wrong in law - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993, s. 28B
Abu Bakar Jais PCA
A judgment creditor must obtain prior leave of court to initiate garnishee proceedings to enforce a monetary judgment once six years or more have lapsed since its entry, as the term 'writ of execution' under O. 46 r. 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 encompasses both writ and non-writ enforcement mechanisms rather than being confined strictly to its narrow literal definition. This broad statutory construction ensures that the fundamental purpose of the rule – namely, to prevent the surprise enforcement of stale judgments under judicial supervision and protect debtors who may have since reorganised their financial affairs – applies uniformly across all execution procedures, meaning that a failure to secure such leave is legally fatal and cannot be excused by the creditor's personal or financial obstacles. CIVIL PROCEDURE | LIMITATION | WORDS & PHRASES
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Execution - Garnishee proceedings - Judgment debt remaining unsatisfied for more than six years - Enforcement of monetary judgment via garnishee proceedings after 11 years and six months - Whether leave of court required prior to commencement of garnishee proceedings - Rules of Court 2012, O. 45 r. 1(1), r. 13(1), O. 46 r. 2(1)(a) & O. 49 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Execution - 'Writ of execution' - Interpretation of - Whether expression restricted only to writs of seizure and sale, possession, and delivery - Interpretation of word 'includes' - Whether extended to non-writ execution proceedings and other modes of execution - Purpose of O. 46 r. 2(1)(a) of Rules of Court 2012 - Prevention of surprise enforcement of stale judgments without court's supervision LIMITATION: Execution of judgment - Six-year rule - Enforcement of judgment or order for payment of money after lapse of six years - Policy considerations - Prevention of surprise enforcement and prejudice to judgment debtors - Whether procedural mechanisms for execution subject to uniform leave requirement under O. 46 r. 2(1)(a) of Rules of Court 2012 WORDS & PHRASES: 'writ of execution' - Interpretation of - Whether expression restricted only to writs of seizure and sale, possession, and delivery - Interpretation of word 'includes' - Whether extended to non-writ execution proceedings and other modes of execution - Purpose of O. 46 r. 2(1)(a) of Rules of Court 2012 Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JCA
A valid, binding, and enforceable contract is concluded under s. 10 of the Contracts Act 1950 ('Act') once all essential terms are agreed upon and accepted. A request to modify terms made after the communication of acceptance is complete does not constitute a counter-offer under s. 7 of the Act, as the original offer has already been extinguished. Instead, such a post-acceptance request amounts to a mere proposal for contractual variation; if this proposal is rejected, the original contract remains valid and in full force. CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Agreement - Letter of offer - Agreement for construction and operation of petrol station - Letter of offer contained essential commercial terms - One party issued letter of offer and other party accepted - Whether there was indication of intention to create legal relations - Whether letter of offer constituted valid, binding and enforceable agreement - Whether either party entitled to withdraw from agreement - Contracts Act 1950, s. 10 CONTRACT: Agreement - Letter of offer - Counter-offer - Agreement for construction and operation of petrol station - Letter of offer contained essential commercial terms - One party issued letter of offer and other party accepted - Request to change option after signing letter of offer - Whether counter-offer could arise after communication of acceptance - Whether rejection of variation proposal left original contract in full force and effect - Contracts Act 1950, s. 7 CONTRACT: Agreement - Letter of offer - Breach - Agreement for construction and operation of petrol station - Letter of offer contained essential commercial terms - One party issued letter of offer and other party accepted - Withdrawal from arrangement and subsequent execution of agreement with competitor - Whether evinced intention no longer to be bound by letter of offer - Whether there was breach of contract - Whether letter of offer constituted valid, binding and enforceable agreement - Whether aggrieved party entitled to damages
Supang Lian JCA
(i) If a distinct cause of action is completely dismissed by the trial court, and that dismissal is not challenged by the appellant in the main appeal, the respondent cannot use a cross-appeal to resurrect or overturn that separate adverse finding. To challenge a completely separate, dismissed cause of action, the aggrieved party must file an independent notice of appeal under r. 5 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994; (ii) In Malaysian jurisprudence, the tort of abuse of process, or malicious prosecution, applies exclusively to the abuse of civil court processes. It cannot be extended or applied to criminal processes, including law enforcement procedures, criminal investigations or criminal prosecutions. CIVIL PROCEDURE | TORT
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Cross-appeal - Competency - High Court dismissed claimant's claim for malicious prosecution but allowed surviving claims under newly recognised tort of abuse of process - Alleged tortfeasors' appeal at Court of Appeal limited to finding of liability under newly recognised tort of abuse of process - Claimant filed notice of cross-appeal to vary dismissal of malicious prosecution claim - Whether cross-appeal limited to part of order forming subject matter of main appeal - Whether claimant could challenge separate substantive adverse finding not raised in main appeal - Whether independent notice of appeal ought to be filed - Whether cross-appeal competent - Rules of Court of Appeal 1994, rr. 5 & 8 TORT: Abuse of process - Malicious process - High Court 'rebranded' claims for wrongful imprisonment and harassment as tort of 'malicious process or abuse of process' arising from criminal investigation and arrest - Whether tort of abuse of process applicable to criminal process or limited exclusively to civil process
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
Section 25A of the Adoption Act 1952 is intended to protect the privacy and psychological well-being of adopted children by concealing their adoptive status on their birth certificates. It was not enacted to serve as a jurisdictional bar to the adoption of foreign-born children possessing only foreign birth certificates. Accordingly, s. 25A must be construed purposively, with the child's welfare remaining the paramount consideration, and not as a procedural impediment to an otherwise meritorious adoption application. CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS | FAMILY LAW
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS: Adoption - Adoption order - Foreign-born child - Absence of Malaysian birth certificate - Whether child possessing only foreign birth certificate could be adopted under Adoption Act 1952 ('AA') - Interpretation of s. 25A of AA - Whether absence of birth certificate issued under Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 constituted bar to adoption - Welfare of child as paramount consideration - Whether procedural birth-registration requirements should defeat adoption application - Ordinary residence requirement - Adoption Act 1952, ss. 4(3), 6(b) & 25A FAMILY LAW: Adoption - Adoption order - Foreign-born child - Factual finding concerning care, custody and treatment of child - Whether home environment highly suitable - Whether child's welfare best served by remaining with adoptive parents - Whether welfare of child supersedes registration technicalities
Choong Yeow Choy J
(i) A breach of an injunctive order is tantamount to a contempt of court. To establish contempt, the mens rea of the alleged contemnor is not an essential ingredient to be proved; it is sufficient to determine whether the act complained of was intentional and inherently likely to interfere with the administration of justice. (ii) In punishing such non-compliance, the court possesses a wide discretion in sentencing. There is no prescribed statutory maximum or minimum sentence for contempt of court; the penalty must be commensurate with the nature and gravity of the breach to serve the twin purposes of punishment and deterrence. While the punishment may take the form of imprisonment, a fine, or a severe reprimand, committing a contemnor to prison remains a remedy of last resort. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings - Contempt of court - Breach of injunction - Interference with due administration of justice - Whether breach deliberate or wilful - Whether motive relevant in contempt inquiry - Whether contemnor acted with subjective intention of defying authority of court - Whether criminal standard of proof applicable - Whether injunction expressed in clear and unequivocal terms - Whether conduct infringed order that injunction designed to protect CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings - Sentence - Interference with due administration of justice - Discretion of court - Primary consideration - Whether punishment should commensurate with degree of culpability - Whether imprisonment last resort punishment - Whether breach of court authority ought to attract greater penalty - Whether mitigating factors outweighed aggravating factors - Whether imposition of fine more appropriate
Edwin Paramjothy Michael Muniandy JC
(i) Section 173(h)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') does not impose an inflexible, mandatory duty on a trial judge to reformulate the prosecution's case when the original charge fails. While the court retains discretion to amend a charge to a lesser or alternative offence if a prima facie case is made out, the primary responsibility for framing and pursuing the appropriate charge rests firmly with the prosecution; (ii) In an appeal against an order of acquittal, an appellate court acting under s. 316(a) of the CPC does not possess the power to amend a charge at the appellate stage. The power to alter a finding of a lower court is strictly reserved for appeals against a conviction or sentence; for appeals against an acquittal, the court is limited to reversing the order, directing further inquiry, ordering a retrial or finding the accused guilty on the existing framework according to law. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Amendment - Accused charged under s. 326 of Penal Code ('PC') for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons - Prosecution failed to prove use or recovery of weapon at close of prosecution case - Accused acquitted without defence being called - Whether trial judge had inflexible duty under s. 173(h)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code to amend charge to s. 325 of PC - Whether responsibility for framing and pursuing appropriate charge rested with prosecution CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal by prosecution against acquittal of accused - Powers of appellate court - Accused charged under s. 326 of Penal Code ('PC') for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons - Prosecution failed to prove use or recovery of weapon at close of prosecution case - Accused acquitted without defence being called - Prosecution urged appellate court to invoke s. 167 read with s. 316 of Criminal Procedure Code to amend charge and convict accused under s. 325 of PC - Whether appellate court had power to amend charge at appellate stage in appeal against acquittal
Adlin Abdul Majid J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|