| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #13/2026
26 March 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
YEOH TSEOW SUAN v. MUSA HASSAN [2026] 3 CLJ 593 Defamation is established even if the claimant is not explicitly named, provided the tortfeasor subtly juxtaposes the claimant's identity with defamatory groups or uses thinly-veiled references that lead a reasonable person to identify the claimant. TORT: Defamation - Slander - Statements made by Inspector General of Police against politician/Minister in speech during forum - Statements involving allegations of ties with Jews, intentions to destroy Islam, and Christianisation of Malaysia - Politician/Minister claimed against Inspector General of Police - Whether public official possessed capacity to maintain action for defamation in personal capacity - Derbyshire principle - Whether defamation established TORT: Defamation - Slander - Identification of claimant - Statements made by Inspector General of Police against politician/Minister in speech during forum - Statements involving allegations of ties with Jews, intentions to destroy Islam, and Christianisation of Malaysia - Impugned statements referred to 'mereka' - Whether statements referred to claimant - Whether defamatory imputations established - Whether defamation established TORT: Defamation - Defences - Justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege - Statements made by Inspector General of Police against politician/Minister in speech during forum - Statements involving allegations of ties with Jews, intentions to destroy Islam, and Christianisation of Malaysia - Whether defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege available to tortfeasor APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 3 (Part 3) (i) Pursuant to s. 17 of Part III of the Second Schedule to the Federal Constitution, in the case of an illegitimate child, the term 'parent' refers to the mother and not the biological father, and the expression 'father', in the context of illegitimacy, is construed as referring to the mother. Therefore, the citizenship of an illegitimate child follows the citizenship of the mother, not the father; (ii) An issuance of the National Registration Identity Card ('NRIC') stating 'Warganegara' does not automatically make a person a citizen. Pursuant to reg. 24 of the National Registration Regulations 1990, the child must prove that the information on the NRIC, especially the citizenship status, is true, by providing other evidence such as parents' lineage. In the absence of such proof, the child has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the child acquired Malaysian citizenship by way of registration or naturalisation. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Illegitimate child - Child born to Malaysian father and non-citizen mother - Whether 'parent' under s. 17 of Part III of Second Schedule to Federal Constitution ('FC') refers to mother - Whether citizenship of illegitimate child follows citizenship of mother - Whether child met requirement of s. 1(a) Part II, Second Schedule of FC - Whether child Malaysian citizen by operation of law under art. 14(1)(b) of FC - Whether classification and registration of child as non-citizen lawfully effected CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Operation of law, by - Illegitimate child - Child born to Malaysian father and non-citizen mother - Whether earlier issuance of National Registration Identity Card proved citizenship of child - Whether child has to prove parents' lineage - Whether child acquired citizenship by way of registration or naturalisation - Whether child Malaysian citizen by operation of law under art. 14(1)(b) of Federal Constitution - Whether classification and registration of child as non-citizen lawfully effected
Azizah Nawawi JCA
An arbitral award resulting from a court-ordered reference under s. 24A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, is legally distinct from a consensual award under the Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA'), as it functions as an extension of the court's trial process where the arbitrator acts as a judicial delegate. Consequently, because such an award carries the inherent status of a court decree or judgment, it cannot be enforced under s. 38 of the AA, which strictly requires a written arbitration agreement that is absent in court-ordered references; this distinction grants the court significantly broader powers to supervise, vary, or set aside the award compared to the more restrictive grounds available under the AA. ARBITRATION | CONTRACT
ARBITRATION: Award - Enforcement - Dispute pertaining non-payment of fees and wrongful termination of contract - Aggrieved party initiated suit at court - Parties referred to court-ordered arbitration under s. 24A of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Distinction between court-ordered reference and consensual arbitration - Whether award could be enforced under s. 38 of Arbitration Act 2005 CONTRACT: Subcontract - Illegality - Public policy - Total subcontract of works by Bumiputera main contractor - Whether 'Ali Baba' arrangement - Whether contrary to public policy and void - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24
Mohd Nazlan Ghazali JCA
Under s. 46(1) of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 ('Act'), where an employer fails to pay contributions, 'every director or person responsible for the management of the affairs of the body' at the time of default is jointly and severally liable with the employer. In the scenario of a football association and its office bearers, s. 46 does not make liability contingent upon, ie, whether the office bearer is remunerated and is involved in daily financial decisions. The wording of the statute is clear, strict and unqualified: liability attaches by virtue of holding office during the period of default. The office bearers are to be held individually liable, irrespective of any ambiguity in initial claims or orders, thereby upholding the primary objective of the Act. Thus, office bearers are jointly and severally liable with the association for all outstanding EPF contributions, dividends and late payment charges for the periods during which each of them held office. PROVIDENT FUND | CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROVIDENT FUND: Employees Provident Fund - Unremitted employee retirement fund contributions in violation of statutory obligations - Liability - Action against football association and its office bearers - Whether football association an employer as defined under s. 2 of Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 ('EPF Act') - Whether football association liable to pay EPF contribution arrears as stipulated under s. 45 of EPF Act - Whether office bearers jointly and severally liable with football association for outstanding contributions, dividends and late payment charges under s. 46 of EPF Act - Whether liability attached by virtue of holding office during period of default - Payment of revised claim - Whether assessment precise, accurate and detailed CIVIL PROCEDURE: Liability - Joint and severally - Unremitted employee retirement fund contributions in violation of statutory obligations - Action against football association and its office bearers - Whether football association an employer as defined under s. 2 of Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 ('EPF Act') - Whether football association liable to pay EPF contribution arrears as stipulated under s. 45 of EPF Act - Whether office bearers jointly and severally liable with football association for outstanding contributions, dividends and late payment charges under s. 46 of EPF Act - Whether liability attached by virtue of holding office during period of default - Payment of revised claim - Whether assessment precise, accurate and detailed
Johan Lee Kien How J
For a power of attorney to be irrevocable under s. 6 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1949, it must be given for valuable consideration. While 'love and affection' may sometimes be cited in a domestic context, it cannot constitute valuable consideration where the relationship is proven to be fractured and characterised by abuse and neglect. In such circumstances, the 'antithesis of love' renders the consideration non-existent and the power of attorney revocable or void. LAND LAW | EVIDENCE | CONTRACT
LAND LAW: Transfer - Transfer of property - Forgery - Claim by administrator of estate of deceased against fraudster - Fraudster transferred half share of property to himself by way of power of attorney purportedly signed by the deceased while she was hospitalised weeks before her death - Allegation that signature on power of attorney forged - Validity of power of attorney executed while donor hospitalised - Whether donor had physical and mental capacity to execute power of attorney - Whether signature forged - Whether power of attorney valid and irrevocable - National Land Code, s. 340(2)(b) - Powers of Attorney Act 1949, s. 6 EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Failure to call material witness - Claim by administrator of estate of deceased against fraudster - Fraudster transferred half share of property to himself by way of power of attorney purportedly signed by deceased before Commissioner for Oaths - Failure to call Commissioner for Oaths to testify - Whether fatal - Whether adverse inference ought to be drawn - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) EVIDENCE: Similar fact evidence - Admissibility - Claim by administrator of estate of deceased against fraudster - Fraudster transferred half share of property to himself by way of power of attorney - Allegation by fraudster that power of attorney executed valid and irrevocable as it was given for valuable consideration - Love and affection between husband and wife - Whether police reports documenting pattern of domestic violence and attempts to force transfer of property supported notion of love and affection - Whether relevant to show intent and pattern of conduct - Evidence Act 1950, s. 15 CONTRACT: Consideration - Power of Attorney - Irrevocability - Love and affection - Claim by administrator of estate of deceased against fraudster - Fraudster transferred half share of property to himself by way of power of attorney purportedly signed by deceased while she was hospitalised weeks before her death - Allegation by fraudster that power of attorney executed valid and irrevocable as it was given for valuable consideration - Whether love and affection established - Powers of Attorney Act 1949, s. 6 Roz Mawar Rozain J
(i) A victim of an alleged State-involved abduction cannot be denied access to the courts simply because they are missing. The court has the inherent power under O. 15 r. 17 of the Rules of Court 2012 to appoint a litigation representative to seek justice for the disappeared; (ii) Prolonged investigative inertia and 'maladministration' - specifically the failure to act on core factual materials for years - constitute a breach of affirmative statutory duties to prevent and detect crime. Such indifference, particularly when it results in the suppression of evidence or the misdirection of a family's pursuit of information, satisfies the requirements for the tort of misfeasance in public office; (iii) The State owes a specific duty of care to a victim of an unlawful seizure when the State is the only entity with the resources and authority to conduct a search. Operational discretion does not immunise the police from a negligence claim where the exercise of power is unreasonable, in bad faith, or characterised by a pattern of omissions and suppression. CIVIL PROCEDURE | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | TORT
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Standing to sue - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Victim's wife appointed as litigation representative - Whether wife had locus standi - Power of court to appoint litigation representative - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 17 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Personal liberty - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Whether there was violation of constitutional rights - Federal Constitution, arts. 5 & 8 TORT: Misfeasance - Misfeasance in public office - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Whether there was breach of statutory duties - Police Act 1967, ss. 3(3) & 20(3) - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 107A, 119 & 120 TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Involvement of State and State agents - Whether alleged tortfeasors owed duty of care to claimants - Whether there was breach of duty of care TORT: Conspiracy - Abduction - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Whether conspiracy established TORT: Vicarious liability - Liability of Government for torts committed by police officers - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Whether officers acting under badge of public authority - Whether Government vicariously liable Su Tiang Joo J
Where a murder occurs within a private, shared dwelling, and the prosecution establishes that the accused was the last person with the deceased in a secure environment, ie, the 'last seen' doctrine, the burden of providing a plausible explanation shifts to the accused. Failure to provide such an explanation, combined with a robust chain of circumstantial evidence - encompassing motive, opportunity, and means - is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, provided the cumulative effect of the evidence excludes any other reasonable hypothesis. CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW: Offence - Murder - Death by smothering - Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish case - Cumulative effect of evidence - Chain of evidence - Whether pointing inexorably to guilt of accused - Whether prosecution established motive, opportunity and means - Whether guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt - Penal Code, s. 302 EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence - 'Last seen' doctrine - Death by smothering - Murder occurred in shared dwelling - Deceased last seen with accused in locked bedroom - Failure of accused to provide plausible explanation - Whether gave rise to strong presumption of guilt - Whether defence of third-party intruder mere conjecture
Muniandy Kannyappan J
ARTICLESCLJ Article(s)
LNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|