CASE SPOTLIGHTS
ATOMY MALAYSIA SDN BHD v. FIRDAUS WONG WAI HUNG [2026] 4 CLJ 795
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ARZIAH MOHAMED APANDI JC
[CIVIL SUIT: WA-23CY-32-05-2021]
13 JANUARY 2026
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.
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Claims involving corporate structure with foreign parent company - Allegations of defamatory postings on Facebook - Statements suggesting connection of plaintiff with foreign parent company with explicit Christian missionary agenda - Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded case - Whether words complained of specifically identified - Whether postings referred to foreign parent company and not to plaintiff - Whether criticism against individual agents/leader within company - Whether publication established - Whether affected plaintiff's business reputation
TORT: Defamation - Defences - Justification and fair comment - Statements suggesting connection of plaintiff with foreign parent company with explicit Christian missionary agenda - Claims involving corporate structure with foreign parent company - Whether foreign parent company exercised complete legal and operational control over plaintiff - Whether core proposition on engagement in Christian evangelical and missionary activities proven on balance of probabilities - Whether defence of justification succeeded - Whether defendant provided religious information and guidance about matter affecting faith practice - Whether honest opinion - Whether malice established - Whether defence of fair comment succeeded
JUDICIAL QUOTES
“We find s. 103EA of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) clearly sets out that a party dissatisfied with a DB or DC decision is entitled to lodge a formal written objection within 14 days of the impugned decision. The DB, however, is empowered to proceed with the hearing until it is finished, even when an objection is raised. This section falls within the disciplinary framework for advocates and solicitors, alongside other sections, including s. 103D of the LPA (Board's consideration of reports) and s. 103E of the LPA (appeals from the Board's decisions). The appellant must comply with the procedures set out in the LPA and exhaust all remedies within the disciplinary framework before seeking a judicial intervention;”
“The learned HCJ was correct in holding that the DC's dismissal of the plaintiff's objections was not a final decision, as the DB could still affirm or reverse the DC's recommendation (s. 103EA of the LPA). It was rightly concluded that the finding by the DC is not a final decision (s. 103C of the LPA) as opposed to a determination by the DB (s. 103D of the LPA) arising from the recommendation of the DC after the conclusion of the inquiry;”
“in light of the foregoing, we concur with the learned HCJ's observation that the appellant's attempt to bypass the DB's mechanism was premature and constituted an abuse of process;” – Per Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JCA in How Chee Hong v. Kan Weng Hin & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 746
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2025] CLJU 313
|
QUANTUM HYRDROMECH SDN BHD v. NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE
1. A jurisdictional challenge on the variation claims which were raised in an adjudication proceedings and were addressed by the adjudicator does not bar the party challenging the adjudication decision from raising the same issue as a ground under s. 15(d) Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012.
2. It is incontrovertible that the adjudicator's jurisdiction is governed by s. 27 read together with ss. 5 and 6 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012. It follows, where there is no payment response from by one party, the adjudicator's jurisdiction is therefore limited to the matter referred to adjudication by the other party in the payment claim.
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Jurisdictional challenge - Claim for outstanding sum in relation to work done and variation works - Whether parties were given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard - Whether there were denial of natural justice - Whether adjudicator had failed to consider variation claims do not constitute payment for work done under express terms of a construction contract - Whether adjudicator had considered incorrect evidence in delivering adjudication decision - Whether adjudicator's jurisdiction is limited to matter referred to adjudication as stated in payment claim
- For the plaintiff in O.S. no. 25 and the defendant in O.S. no. 29 - Reno Nga Chee Leang & Ivan Tan; M/s Nga Chambers
- For the defendant in O.S. no. 25 and the plaintiff in O.S. no. 29 - Felicia Lai Wai Kim; M/s Harold & Lam Partnership
|
|
[2025] CLJU 328
|
Q & M DENTAL GROUP (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v. TYE CHEE WAH & ORS
1. A final arbitral award made by a foreign arbitration centre cannot be said to be against public policy when the arbitrator had comprehensively dealt with the issues and correctly considered the laws of Malaysia in the determination of dispute in the arbitration. A foreign arbitral award will be recognised as binding and be enforced as a judgment in the terms of the award as long as the formal requirements under s. 38 Arbitration Act 2005 read together with O. 69 r. 8, ROC 2012 are fulfilled.
2. To enforce a foreign arbitral award in Malaysia, it is not necessary to first make an application in the High Court of that foreign country to enforce the final award before the High Court in Malaysia could give order for recognition and enforcement of the said final award. It follows, there is no requirement in s. 38 or 39 Arbitration Act 2005 to first enforce a foreign final award in the seat of the Arbitration i.e. Singapore, before the plaintiff can apply for the final award to be recognised as binding and for judgment to be entered in such terms of the final award.
ARBITRATION: Arbitral award - Setting aside - Public policy - Final award made by Singapore International Arbitration Centre - Plaintiff obtained ex parte order for recognition and enforcement of final award - Whether award was enforceable as at date of ex parte order - Whether final award was against public policy - Whether arbitral award was in conflict with public policy - Whether issue of public policy was raised in arbitration - Whether Court could delve into merits of disputes - Whether arbitrator had correctly considered laws of Malaysia - Whether plaintiff has satisfied all statutory requirements in law in obtaining ex parte order - Whether all formal requirements for registration of final award under s. 38 of Arbitration Act 2005 and under O. 69 r. 8 of Rules of Court 2012 were complied with
- For the plaintiff - SM Shanmugam, Calvin Hooi Chung Wai & Hafiiz Rashid (PDK); M/s Shan Chambers
- For the defendant - Michael Chow, Goh Keng Tat & Elisa Oyenz Jeson; M/s Goh Keng Tat & Co
|
|
[2026] CLJU 12
|
NAM v. PAA & ANOR
1. A withdrawal of a criminal complaint in the context of a domestic relationship does not, ipso facto, mean the violence did not occur for the purposes of a civil matrimonial petition where the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. Withdrawal of the police report does not negate the fact of cruelty.
2. The burden of proof rests on the petitioner wife to establish adultery on a balance of probabilities. The law does not require the petitioner wife to tender direct evidence of sexual intercourse. Intimate messages and the petitioner's eyewitness account of the parties kissing, are sufficient on a balance of probabilities to prove respondent husband's infidelity.
3. Issuance of a legal notice by respondent husband against petitioner wife to vacate and physically locking his family out clearly created a situation where the petitioner wife could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent husband. This conduct falls squarely within s. 54(1)(b) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) and constitutes desertion.
4. A husband has an obligation to make full, frank, and transparent disclosure of his means. Any shortcomings in this disclosure justify the Court in drawing inferences against him. Court could invoke adverse inference under s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against the husband for failure to produce basic financial documentation. Husband cannot hide behind the shield of non-disclosure to evade his statutory and moral obligations to his child.
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Irretrievable break down - Unreasonable behavior and cruelty - Domestic violence - Adultery - Constructive desertion - Wife and child was forced to leave matrimonial home - Husband issued legal notice ordering wife to vacate matrimonial home - Child was an eyewitness - Wife withdrew police report lodged against husband - Whether husband had committed acts of violence and cruelty - Whether withdrawal of police report could negate cruelty of husband - Whether respondent husband's conduct had caused irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Whether requirement under s. 54(1)(a) of Law Reform (Marriage And Divorce) Act 1976 had been satisfied - Whether decree nisi should be made absolute immediately
FAMILY LAW: Children - Access - Maintenance - Overnight visitation - Past violence and aggressive behaviour of respondent husband - Financial capacity of respondent in dispute - Whether paramount consideration is welfare of child - Whether veil of poverty could be used to evade moral and statutory obligations - Whether trust between respondent husband and child had been severely damaged - Whether day visitation was proper - Whether access should be exercisable with child's consent and willingness
FAMILY LAW: Maintenance - Spousal maintenance - Claim for modest monthly maintenance - Working woman - Wife was forced out of matrimonial home - Respondent husband was solely responsible for breakdown of marriage - Husband failed to produce income tax returns or bank statements - Whether allegation of husband's poverty proven
FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial asset - Division - Matrimonial home - Husband's employee provident fund - Claim for half share - EPF savings were accumulated during marriage - Matrimonial home purchased during subsistence of marriage - Wife financially contributed to husband's education and indirectly contributed to welfare of family - Whether wife is entitled for half share of EPF savings - Whether EPF savings accumulated by respondent were result of parties' joint partnership during marriage - Whether it would be inequitable to deny petitioner her share of respondent husband's EPF savings - Whether respondent had made direct financial contributions on matrimonial home - Whether equal division of matrimonial home was fair and just
- For the petitioner - Ang Jun Jia; M/s Max Yee & Ang
- For the respondents - Muhammad Irham Redzuan; M/s M S Nizam & Co
|
|
[2026] CLJU 10
|
PP lwn. GOPALAKRISHNAN NADARAJA
1. Perbuatan tertuduh yang menggalas beg yang mengandungi dadah tidak cukup untuk membuktikan milikan tanpa wujud keterangan yang menunjukkan tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan tentang dadah tersebut. Keterhampiran fizikal tertuduh dengan dadah tidak mencukupi untuk pihak pendakwaan membuat inferens bahawa tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah.
2. Peranan pegawai penyiasat adalah untuk menyiasat segala aspek tidak hanya yang menyebelahi pihak pendakwaan tetapi juga tertuduh. Tertuduh tidak seharusnya dihukum atas kelemahan atau kurang cerdik pandai dalam penyiasatan.
3. Walaupun tertuduh telah dibawa ke tempat-tempat yang dijumpai dadah dengan jumlah yang banyak, tetapi tanpa bukti yang menunjukkan bahawa tertuduh mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan serta tiada bukti menunjukkan bahawa tertuduh mempunyai kuasa pelupusan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut, maka anggapan pengetahuan tidak boleh dianggap wujud.
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Pemilikan - Dadah dijumpai di dalam beg galas yang digalas oleh tertuduh dan di tempat yang dibawa tertuduh - Dadah dijumpai dalam jumlah yang besar - Kes prima facie - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai jagaan, kawalan dan milikan dadah - Sama ada pengetahuan tertuduh boleh disangkal - Sama ada inferens di bawah s. 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dapat dibuat - Sama ada rantaian barang kes utuh - Sama ada pemilikan esklusif telah dibuktikan - Sama ada keputusan analisa DNA adalah diragui - Sama ada usaha yang mencukupi telah dibuat untuk mengesan saksi penting - Sama ada rakaman percakapan saksi wajar diterima - Sama ada kes prima facie telah dibuktikan
- Bagi pihak perayu - Mohamed Heikal Ismail; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
- Bagi pihak responden - N Sivanathan & Nabila Habib; T/n Sivanathan
|
|
[2026] CLJU 16
|
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD lwn. SL LAND SDN BHD & ANOR; BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA BAZAAR SENTRAL (PIHAK KETIGA)
Pihak yang telah memohon untuk bekalan elektrik ke suatu premis merupakan pengguna berdaftar bagi bekalan elektrik yang dibekalkan ke premis tersebut. Penggunaan bekalan elektrik di premis tersebut dan obligasi untuk membayar kesemua bil-bil elektrik dan caj-caj yang terakru adalah merupakan tanggungjawab utama pengguna berdaftar. Adalah tidak berasas untuk pengguna berdaftar mendakwa tanggungjawab untuk membayar bil-bil elektrik adalah terletak pada badan pengurusan bagi premis tersebut.
UTILITI-UTILITI: Elektrik - Kontrak belakan - Tunggakan caj penggunaan elektrik - Tuntutan tunggakan bil elektrik bulanan - Sama ada pengguna berdaftar bertanggungjawab untuk membayar kesemua caj-caj dan bil-bil elektrik terakru - Sama ada plaintif mempunyai hubungan kontrak dengan badan pengurusan - Sama ada plaintif gagal memitigasikan kerugiannya kerana tidak memotong bekalan elektrik setelah mendapati kewujudan tunggakan bil-bil elektrik - Sama ada pengguna berdaftar boleh menuntut sebarang indemniti atau sumbangan daripada badan pengurusan
- Bagi pihak peguam perayu - T/n Enho Grace & Partners,
- Bagi pihak peguam responden - T/n Mohanadass Partnership
|
CLJ 2026 Volume 4 (Part 4)
The prosecution has a duty to offer all material witnesses to the defence, regardless of its own assessment of that witness's utility or the perceived strength of the accused's case. It is the sole right of the accused – not the prosecution – to determine which witnesses are material to their defence and necessary to raise a reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot pre-emptively filter evidence based on its own opinion of relevance; the credibility and weight of the defence's evidence are matters strictly for the court to adjudicate.
Santoshkumar Sukumaran v. PP [2026] 4 CLJ 529 [CA]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs - Accused convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping - Prosecution's failure to offer other arrestees as witnesses to defence - Whether prejudicial to preparation of defence - Whether prosecution had duty to determine utility of witnesses for defence - Whether there was serious miscarriage of justice - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)
EVIDENCE: Witnesses - Duty of prosecution - Accused found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs - Accused convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping - Prosecution's failure to offer other arrestees as witnesses to defence - Prosecution formed opinion on relevance of witnesses to defence case - Whether such duty rested with prosecution - Whether accused deprived of fair trial
Azman Abdullah JCA
Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JCA
Nadzarin Wok Nordin JCA
- For the appellant - Mohd Hisham Nazir; M/s Hisham Nazir & Co
- For the respondent - Shamala Jaganathan; DPP; AG's Chambers
An application to amend, inter alia, a writ and statement of claim should be granted where the proposed amendments seek to clarify, expand, or explain additional material facts. This is particularly applicable when the amendments are rooted in previously pleaded issues and are made in good faith to ensure all relevant facts are before the court, thereby enabling the resolution of the real issues in dispute.
1Malaysia Development Bhd v. Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 544 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment - Writ and statement of claim - Application for - Whether there was need to provide additional specifics - Whether made in good faith - Whether proposed amendments would change nature of suit to one of different and inconsistent character - Whether there was inordinate delay
Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J
- For the plaintiff - Lim Chee Wee, Elizabeth Lau, Hazel Siau, Soh Lip Shan & Lip Sie Kai; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership
- For the 1st defendant - Jack Yow, Melvin Ng Yet Ting, Lee Ji Kean & Clifford Foo (Pupil in chambers); M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners
- For the 4th to 6th defendants - Alex Tan Chie Sian, Cheah Kha Mun & Hing Hong Shen; M/s Alex Tan Chie Sian
Pursuant to s. 30(6A) and the Second Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, the Industrial Court is subject to a two-step process when awarding backwages. Firstly, backwages are capped at a maximum of 24 months. While the court has the discretion to grant less than 24 months, it cannot exceed the statutory limit. Where a claimant has secured post-dismissal earnings, the court is mandated to deduct a percentage of those earnings from the initial backwages assessment. The specific percentage to be deducted is at the court's discretion, determined by balancing factors such as the claimant's efforts to mitigate loss, the bad faith of the employer, and the circumstances of the termination.
Edelsteen Sdn Bhd v. Sharifah Itasha Jamalullai Syed Nushadil [2026] 4 CLJ 571 [HC]
LABOUR LAW
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Employee dismissed from employment due to poor performance - Employee secured post-dismissal employment five months after termination - Industrial Court awarded 24 months' backwages - Two-step process in awarding backwages - Whether Industrial Court failed to account for post-dismissal earnings - Whether deduction of percentage of post-dismissal earnings mandatory - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(6A), Second Schedule, paras. 1 & 3
Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J
- For the appellant - Iffah Jalilah Ithnin; M/s Zahari Affendi & Partners
- For the respondent - Mohd Suharin Sulaiman Siew; M/s Aimi Farhana & Siew
Section 82(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 imposes an absolute statutory bar on a former spouse's entitlement to maintenance upon that spouse's remarriage or upon proof that the spouse is living in adultery. A former spouse's deliberate concealment of remarriage extinguishes the very entitlement to spousal maintenance, thereby vitiating consent at its root. In a scenario where parties have entered into consent orders secured by fraudulent misrepresentation, and where such consent is founded on a material falsehood, the consent is rendered voidable and the resulting orders cannot stand.
Kanagasingam Kandiah v. Shireen Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 4 CLJ 583 [HC]
FAMILY LAW
FAMILY LAW: Maintenance - Spousal maintenance - Setting aside - Application for - Discovery of first defendant's marriage to second defendant - Whether there was fraudulent concealment of remarriage - Whether there was collusion to mislead court for financial gain - Whether entire foundation of first defendant's financial claims built on fraud and collusion - Whether aggravated and exemplary damages ought to be awarded - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 82
- For the plaintiff - KS Satkunabalan & Dinesh Kannen Kandiah; M/s KS Satkuna & Co
- For the 1st defendant - K Bhuvaneswari & V Alahakone; M/s Bhuvan & Co
- For the 2nd defendant - Not present
In assessing damages for breach of contract, the court will favour expert evidence that is methodologically sound, commercially realistic, and well-supported by documents, while disregarding speculative or flawed opinions. Accordingly, damages for breach of contract must reflect the actual costs incurred in delivering services, not abstract or pro-rated calculations, ensuring a fair and reasonable estimate of the claimant's real loss.
MRA International Sdn Bhd v. SPC Diatech, LLC [2026] 4 CLJ 604 [HC]
CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Damages - Agency - Breach of agency agreement - Claim for damages, accounts of profits and costs - Whether claimant successfully proven on balance of probabilities its claims - Whether evidence by claimant's expert witness ought to be preferred - Whether evidence by claimant's expert witness methodologically sound, commercially realistic and well-supported by documents - Whether claimant successfully proven exceptionally bad conduct by opposing party - Copyright Act 1987, s. 37(1)(d)
- For the plaintiff - Manjit Kaur Gill & Keeshantini Baskeran; M/s Manjit Lavinder & Co
- For the defendant - Cindy Goh Joo Seong & Nigel William Kraal; M/s Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff
Digital assets, such as Bitcoin, remain subject to the court's forfeiture powers even if they appear 'vanished' or the public wallet address appears empty, provided they are held under the constructive control of a custodian. A custodian's confirmation that assets are being held specifically to await a court order satisfies the requirement that the assets exist and are reachable by operation of the law.
PP v. Mohammad Fadino Khairuman & Anor [2026] 4 CLJ 645 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW: Money laundering - Forfeiture of property - Application for forfeiture of digital assets - Bitcoin - Whether assets were proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether predicate offence proven - Whether perpetrator misled investors - Whether there was abetment in deception - Whether application ought to be allowed - Whether digital assets ought to be forfeited - Whether assets subject to freezing order - Whether application made within time - Whether decentralised digital environment remained subject to forfeiture regime - Whether court's jurisdiction could reach assets held by foreign digital custodian - Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, Anti-Restricted Activity and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s. 56(1) - Penal Code, ss. 107 & 420
Mohd Arief Emran Arifin J
- For the applicant - Nurul Wahida Jalaluddin; DPP; AG's Chambers
- For the 1st respondent - Fahmi Abd Moin DC; M/s Fahmi Abd Moin
- For the 2nd respondent - Siti Nur Athirazatti Rohizad; M/s Saiful, Roger & Co
(i) For the purposes of Double Taxation Agreements ('DTA'), the real property gains tax ('RPGT') is a sui generis tax and is not automatically classified as a 'capital gains tax'. Unless the RPGT is explicitly enumerated under the 'taxes covered' provision of a DTA, a contracting state retains its sovereign taxing rights. The omission of a specific tax from the treaty list is determinative of its exclusion; (ii) In the context of the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976, para. 34A of Schedule 2 acts as a specific, overriding provision for real property companies ('RPC'). The 'deemed' disposal price for RPC shares is the actual consideration paid, as mandated by para. 34A(4). This specific rule takes precedence over the general market value substitution rule found in para. 9, even in transactions between connected persons.
St Jude Medical International Holdings SARL v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2026] 4 CLJ 679 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | REVENUE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy - Statutory right of appeal to Special Commissioners of Income Tax - Whether judicial review available where challenge involves jurisdictional error and breach of international treaty - Whether there were exceptional circumstances - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53
REVENUE LAW: Real property gains tax - Assessment - Real Property Company - Disposal of shares between connected persons - Determination of disposal price - Conflict between general and specific provisions - Whether market value under para. 9 of Schedule 2 applicable provision - Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976, Sch. 2, paras. 9 & 34A
REVENUE LAW: Real property gains tax - Double Taxation Agreement ('DTA') - Malaysia-Luxembourg DTA - Sovereign right to tax - Effect of omission of specific tax from treaty list - Interpretation of article 14 - Whether real property gains tax falls within scope of 'taxes covered' - Whether capital gains tax
- For the applicant - Jason Liang, Anlynn Ng & Chloe Ng Yit Ping; M/s Wong & Partners
- For the respondent - Mohammad Hafidz Ahmad & Muhammad Danial Izzat Zulbahari; Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
-
THE GOVERNANCE ROLE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES: SAFEGUARDING CORPORATE LEGALITY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2016
[Read excerpt]
by Chong Wai Kuan* [2026] CLJU(A) xliii
[2026] CLJU(A) xliii
MALAYSIA
THE GOVERNANCE ROLE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES:
SAFEGUARDING CORPORATE LEGALITY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2016
by
Chong Wai Kuan*
ABSTRACT
The company secretary occupies a central yet often under-examined position within the corporate governance framework established by the Companies Act 2016. While directors exercise managerial authority and shareholders retain ultimate ownership rights, the lawful operation of corporate governance depends upon the procedural integrity of meetings, resolutions, and statutory filings. This article argues that Malaysian courts are functionally constructing the company secretary as a procedural gatekeeper, even in the absence of explicit statutory recognition.
Through a doctrinal analysis of recent Malaysian cases, including Ng Kae Jeng v. Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors, Tan Lae Peng v. Khoo Thean San & Ors and Abdul Malek Faisal Mohd Hyffny v. Shaikh Markhzan Jalani & Ors, the article demonstrates that corporate disputes frequently arise from failures in procedural governance rather than purely commercial disagreements. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that corporate acts must comply strictly with statutory and constitutional procedures, particularly where decisions affect the governance structure of the company, such as the removal of directors or the convening of meetings of members.
The article contends that these developments reveal an emerging doctrinal expectation that company secretaries serve not merely as administrative officers but as professional compliance gatekeepers within the corporate structure. Given that the office of company secretary under the Companies Act 2016 requires recognised professional qualifications or regulatory licensing, the responsibilities attached to the role necessarily extend to safeguarding procedural compliance and promoting sound corporate governance. By examining the interaction between statutory provisions, corporate procedure, and judicial oversight, this article advances the proposition that the company secretary functions as a critical institutional safeguard within Malaysian corporate law.
. . .
-
OFFERING OF SHARIAH-COMPLIANT CRYPTO ASSETS IN MALAYSIA: LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
[Read excerpt]
by Muhammad Afif bin Che Had[i] Nor Aqilah Binti Mohamad Zaki[ii] [2026] CLJU(A) xliv
[2026] CLJU(A) xliv
MALAYSIA
OFFERING OF SHARIAH-COMPLIANT CRYPTO ASSETS IN MALAYSIA:
LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
by
Muhammad Afif bin Che Had[i]
Nor Aqilah Binti Mohamad Zaki[ii]
Malaysia's Islamic Capital Market ('ICM') has evolved into a cornerstone of the national financial system, reaching RM2.7 trillion and accounting for approximately 64% of the country's total capital market as of the end of 2025.[1] The Securities Commission Malaysia ('SC'), through its Capital Market Masterplan 2026–2030 ('CMP 2026–2030'), launched on 9 March 2026, envisages a strategic transition of the ICM framework from a model focused primarily on Shariah compliance to one that is increasingly purpose-driven. This article seeks to analyse the legal and regulatory framework governing crypto assets in Malaysia, while also examining the key Shariah considerations relevant to the structuring and offering of Shariah-compliant crypto assets.
Under the CMP vision, the ICM is to be anchored by Maqasid al-Shariah (the objectives of Shariah) and the principles of Halal-Toyyib, fostering the development of ethical Islamic financial products that not only satisfy legal and regulatory requirements but also contribute meaningfully to human well-being through the protection of religion, life, intellect, lineage and wealth, while aligning capital deployment with real economic outcomes and sustainable growth. In this regard, the SC had already introduced the Maqasid Al-Shariah Guidance in 2023, and the CMP 2026–2030 reinforces and deepens that direction. The Maqasid Al-Shariah Guidance is structured around six aspirations and 15 guiding principles aimed at strengthening trust and enhancing the ICM's contribution to society and the real economy.[2]
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| AKTA 27 |
Akta Agensi Persendirian 1971 |
AKTA A1782 |
28 April 2026 [PU(B) 147/2026] |
Seksyen 3, 5, 9, 13 and 18A |
| ACT 27 |
Private Agencies Act 1971 |
ACT A1782 |
28 April 2026 [PU(B) 147/2026] |
Sections 3, 5, 9, 13 and 18A |
| ACT 206 |
Arms Act 1960 (Revised 1978) |
PU(A) 94/2026 |
21 February 2026 |
Second Schedule |
| ACT 751 |
Rukun Tetangga Act 2012 |
ACT A1789 |
1 April 2026 [PU(B) 90/2026] |
Sections 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 17 and 23 |
| AKTA 751 |
Akta Rukun Tetangga 2012 |
AKTA A1789 |
1 April 2026 [PU(B) 90/2026] |
Seksyen 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 17 dan 23 |
Revoked
|
