New This Week

• Case Spotlights

  1. YEOH JIN AIK v. TAN JIN KEAT & ANOR [2026] 4 CLJ 986

• Appeal Updates

  1. Appeal Updates

• Latest Cases

  1. Legal Network Series

  2. CLJ 2026 Volume 4 (Part 5)

• Articles

  1. CLJ Article(s)

  2. LNS Article(s)

• Legislation Highlights

  1. Principal Acts

  2. Amending Acts

  3. PU(A)

  4. PU(B)

  5. Legislation Alert

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

YEOH JIN AIK v. TAN JIN KEAT & ANOR [2026] 4 CLJ 986
HIGH COURT MALAYA, PENANG
WENDY OOI SU GHEE J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: PA-22NCVC-102-07-2024]
30 JANUARY 2026

BANKING: Banks and banking business - Remittance - Foreign currency solicitors' clients' account - Remittance applications by solicitor refused by bank - Inadequate documentation and information - Whether monies in clients' account trust monies - Whether monies belonged to advocate and solicitor - Whether bank assumed fiduciary obligation towards clients as beneficiaries - Whether bank justified in rejecting applications due to incomplete documentation - Whether bank in breach of mandate and instructions - Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Financial Services Act 2013

EVIDENCE: Privilege - Legal professional privilege - Professional communication - Information requested by bank to process remittance from solicitors' clients' account - Refusal by bank to honour remittance applications - Inadequate documentation and information - Whether information fell within ambit of s. 126 of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether privilege belonged to solicitor or client - Whether client's instruction to submit remittance application constituted waiver of privilege

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors' clients' account - Nature of funds - Foreign currency solicitors' clients' account - Refusal by bank to honour remittance applications - Inadequate documentation and information - Whether solicitor owner of funds in clients' account - Whether monies in clients' account trust monies

APPEAL UPDATES

1. Land Custody And Development Authority v. Pang Chee Hun @ Phang Chee Hun & Ors [2026] CLJU 84 affirming the High Court case of Pang Chee Hun @ Phang Chee Hun & Ors v. Merces Builders (S) Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Ors [Suit No. KCH-22NCvC-12/2-2022(HC4)]

2. Kaochern Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Another Appeal [2026] CLJU 240 affirming the High Court case of Kaochern Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan & Another Case [2025] 6 CLJ 83

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

CLJ 2026 Volume 4 (Part 5)

General damages serve to compensate for the human and personal consequences of an injury, such as physical discomfort and diminished emotional well-being, and are awarded for non-pecuniary losses arising naturally from negligence, in cases where a patient has to endure pain and suffering resulting from a medical practitioner's negligence, regardless of whether these losses can be proven by documentary evidence. Aggravated damages are further justified where a medical practitioner's conduct is callous or unsympathetic, thereby exacerbating the patient's misery and causing additional psychological distress beyond the underlying negligence. However, while seeking private treatment may be partially attributed to such negligence, it remains unreasonable for a patient to opt for expensive overseas options without proof that local treatment was unavailable; consequently, a practitioner cannot be held liable for costs incurred from a patient's unilateral decision to seek medical care elsewhere without prior consultation or notification.
Ahmad Faizal Mohamad Ali & Ors v. Jay Shree LC Doshi [2026] 4 CLJ 691 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Under s. 96 of the Road Transport Act 1987, a third-party claimant is not required to obtain a separate judgment against an insurer before commencing execution via garnishee proceedings. Furthermore, the validity and effectiveness of a declaratory order against a third party are strictly contingent upon compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under s. 96(3). Where an insurer fails to fulfil these statutory obligations, the resulting order is, by operation of law, of no effect against the third party. There is therefore no procedural necessity for an aggrieved third party to apply to set aside such an order, as it remains statutorily ineffective once non-compliance with the mandatory conditions of s. 96(3) is demonstrated.
Allianz General Insurans Company (M) Bhd v. Norbiyah Mat Aris & Anor [2026] 4 CLJ 724 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The court will not exercise its inherent or supervisory jurisdiction where a specific statutory scheme, in this case the Legal Profession Act 1976, provides a comprehensive internal disciplinary and appeal mechanism. Exhausting these domestic remedies is a condition precedent to any application for judicial intervention.
How Chee Hong v. Kan Weng Hin & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 746 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(i) Damages for personal injury must be proportionate to the injury and consistent with current judicial trends. Even where an injury is complicated by prolonged and traumatic healing or permanent impairment, the award must remain in line with recent authorities. Doubling the highest comparable award is considered excessive and constitutes an appealable error of law; (ii) A lack of contemporaneous evidence, specifically medical reports immediately following the accident, combined with a delayed emergence of symptoms years later, strongly suggests the injury is pre-existing or degenerative rather than accident-related.
A Aidip A Zaidi v. Zarif Zahiruddin Zali & Anor [2026] 4 CLJ 767 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

This case sits at a complex intersection of corporate law, defamation law, religious freedom and freedom of expression. It raises crucial questions about the extent to which a wholly-owned subsidiary can or should be insulated from reputational association with its parent company's controversial activities. The law of defamation exists to protect reputation. But reputation must be based on reality. In a democratic society that values both religious freedom and freedom of expression, religious teachers must be able to guide their communities on matters affecting religious practice. When a company's corporate structure and financial relationships create religious implications for believers, discussion of those implications is not defamation but necessary public discourse.
Atomy Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2026] 4 CLJ 795 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

In determining whether an item qualifies as a 'plant' under Sch. 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 for capital allowance purposes, the term should be interpreted broadly with a focus on its function in the business rather than its physical form. Item that plays an active role in the operation of the business may be regarded as 'plant' if they serve as part of the apparatus of the trade and contribute to the generation of income.
Petronas Dagangan Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals [2026] 4 CLJ 824 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The term 'relevant requirement', under s. 360(13)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ('Act'), is not restrictive. It encompasses any requirement imposed by or under the said Act, specifically: (i) prohibitions against fraud, deceit, or making untrue statements, pursuant to s. 179 of the Act; (ii) provisions related to the siphoning of funds and director duties, pursuant to s. 317A of the Act; and (iii) allegations of abetting a contravention also fall within s. 360, as abetment provisions cannot be read in isolation from the substantive breaches they facilitate.
Securities Commission Malaysia v. Tey Por Yee & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 834 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

ARTICLES

CLJ Article(s)

1. COMMON DISPUTES FACED BY DEVELOPERS AND NAVIGATING THE STRATA MANAGEMENT TRIBUNAL ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Dato' Dr Pretam Singh Darshan Singh* [2026] 4 CLJ(A) i

[2026] 4 CLJ(A) i

MALAYSIA

---

COMMON DISPUTES FACED BY DEVELOPERS AND NAVIGATING THE STRATA MANAGEMENT TRIBUNAL

by
Dato' Dr Pretam Singh Darshan Singh*

Introduction

Strata living originated from communal arrangements, where everyone shared a single shelter and resources without formal laws or boundaries. In those early days, there was no need for the Strata Titles Act or similar regulations to define ownership. Everything was collectively shared, including, as the old joke goes, even spouses.

With the advent of development, individual units began to emerge. Developers often present these units as ideal, much like a parent admiring a child. In strata developments, however, there is more than one "child". In any multi-storey building, there will inevitably be at least one dissatisfied owner, regardless of the efforts made to satisfy them.

This reflects a fundamental aspect of human nature: complete satisfaction is rarely achievable. Out of 100 purchasers, one or two will almost always be unhappy. No matter how well-designed or carefully managed a development may be, complaints are inevitable. Anticipating these issues and being prepared to address them is essential for effective strata management.

. . .

* Managing Partner, Pretam Singh Nor & Co

LNS Article(s)

1. 'CORRUPTION IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE'
   KAPLAN LECTURE 2025^{+ [Read excerpt]}
   by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon* [2026] CLJU(A) xlv

[2026] CLJU(A) xlv

SINGAPORE

---

'CORRUPTION IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE'

KAPLAN LECTURE 2025⁺

by
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*

Professor Neil Kaplan CBE KC 
Distinguished guests 
Ladies and gentlemen

I. Introduction

1. Good evening. Let me first offer the heartfelt condolences of my country, my Judiciary and myself to the people of Hong Kong, and to the families and loved ones of the victims of the fire in Tai Po. We stand by you, we grieve with you, and we hold you in our hearts and prayers. We also thank the many who have risen and rallied together to show that the spirit of Hong Kong remains indomitable even in the face of such tragedy. The fact that this event is proceeding at this time is a sign of that.

2. Let me also thank Neil for that extremely generous and kind introduction, and for inviting me to deliver this lecture. It is a great honour. Since the inaugural lecture delivered in 2007, this stage has been graced by many illustrious speakers, including The Right Honourable the Lord Neuberger, who is with us this evening, the Honourable Yves Fortier KC, and most recently, the former Chief Justice of Hong Kong, the Honourable Geoffrey Ma.

3. That esteemed list reflects the standing and stature of the person in whose honour this lecture is given. Over the course of more than five decades, Neil has distinguished himself as a barrister, a judge, and perhaps most notably, as one of the leading figures in the world of international arbitration. Indeed, such has been his contribution to the development and growth of arbitration in Hong Kong that he is widely regarded as the "Father of Hong Kong Arbitration". So, on behalf of all of us here tonight, thank you so much Neil for all that you have done.

. . .

+Reproduced with permission of the Singapore Courts: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/chief-justice-sundaresh-menon--kaplan-lecture-2025.

*Supreme Court of Singapore.

2. DEFERRED INDEFEASIBILITY AND THE LIMITS OF STATUTORY REMEDIES UNDER SECTION 340 OF THE NLC: A REAPPRAISAL OF LOW HUAT CHENG v. ROZDENIL ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Tay Hui Ni^[i] Rachel Lim Xin Yi^[ii] Liaw Kaylee^[iii] Andrew Chen Li Quan^[iv] Dr. Nur Atheefa Sufeena binti M Suaree^[v] [2026] CLJU(A) xlvi

[2026] CLJU(A) xlvi

MALAYSIA

---

DEFERRED INDEFEASIBILITY AND THE LIMITS OF STATUTORY REMEDIES UNDER SECTION 340 OF THE NLC:
A REAPPRAISAL OF LOW HUAT CHENG v. ROZDENIL

by
Tay Hui Ni^[i]
Rachel Lim Xin Yi^[ii]
Liaw Kaylee^[iii]
Andrew Chen Li Quan^[iv]
Dr. Nur Atheefa Sufeena binti M Suaree^[v]

ABSTRACT

This article critically analyses the Federal Court decision in Low Huat Cheng & Anor v. Rozdenil Toni through the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility undersection 340 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020) (Act 828) ('NLC'). The analysis is grounded in the landmark decision of Tan Ying Hong v. Tan Sian San & Ors, which rejected the earlier doctrine of immediate indefeasibility endorsed in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v. Boonsom Boonyanit and clarified that Malaysian law adopts the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility. The Federal Court reaffirmed that an immediate purchaser who acquires title through a forged instrument holds only a defeasible title. However, if the land is transferred to a bona fide subsequent purchaser for value without notice of the fraud or forgery, the title becomes indefeasible under section 340(3) of the NLC.

The Federal Court in Low Huat Cheng further clarified that section 340 of the NLC provides only a remedy in rem, meaning that it permits recovery or challenge to the land itself rather than creating a personal claim for damages. As section 340 does not contain any express provision for damages, the court has no jurisdiction to award monetary relief under the provision. Any claim for damages must be pursued through a separate cause of action, such as negligence or breach of contract, rather than under section 340 of the NLC.

. . .

[i]–[iv] Second year law student, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

[v] Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

3. THE PEPPERCORN: RECONCILING SECTION 26 WITH THE NO-CONSIDERATION MODEL UNDER THE CISG ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Tun Heang Ong* [2026] CLJU(A) xlvii

[2026] CLJU(A) xlvii

MALAYSIA

---

THE PEPPERCORN: RECONCILING SECTION 26 WITH THE NO-CONSIDERATION MODEL UNDER THE CISG

by
Tun Heang Ong*

INTRODUCTION: THE SACRED COW OF CONSIDERATION

Within Malaysian legal education, the doctrine of consideration is regarded as a foundational element of the law of obligations. It is introduced early in legal training and remains central to professional practice. Section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 codifies the principle that an agreement without consideration is void, a rule deeply ingrained in Malaysian legal culture (Arjunan and Nabi Baksh, 2018). For practitioners, the exchange of value serves as the primary test for contractual enforceability, distinguishing binding agreements from mere promises. As a result, many Malaysian lawyers approach the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ('CISG') with scepticism, largely because the CISG does not require consideration for contract formation.

This scepticism extends beyond academic debate and manifests in professional practice, where the CISG is routinely excluded from international sale agreements. Such exclusions are often standardised, appearing in contract templates alongside choice of law or jurisdiction clauses. The primary motivation is a preference for the familiar, particularly the Sale of Goods Act 1957, which is viewed as a reliable framework. However, in the context of international commerce, the requirement for consideration frequently introduces unnecessary legal friction. While Malaysian law maintains the 19th-century English tradition that a promise without consideration is unenforceable, international markets have shifted toward a consensus-based approach to contract formation (Schwenzer et al., 2012). This article contends that the Malaysian Bar should modernise its approach. Adoption of the CISG would enable lawyers to prioritise commercial intent over technical formalities, challenging the perception that consideration is essential for cross-border transactions.

. . .

*Mr Ong is an advocate and solicitor (non-practising). He holds a Master of Laws from Nottingham Trent University and a Master of Corporate Law and Governance from Veritas University College.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert