| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #17/2026
23 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
MAGNUM CONSORTIUM SDN BHD v. 3Q RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD [2026] 4 CLJ 446 Even with the litigant's best endeavours in preparing or drafting the final judgment or order for the court's seal, inadvertent mistakes may still occur. The law, recognising this reality, confers upon the courts a limited power to correct accidental slips or omissions in a judgment or order without the need to re-open the entire case. An amendment may be granted where the mistake sought to be corrected is genuine, not misleading and does not cause any reasonable doubt or prejudice. Such a correction falls properly within the court's jurisdiction under O. 20 r. 11 of the Rules of Court 2012. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Amendment of - Misdescription of land title - Rectification - Slip rule - Whether mere clerical slip - Whether amendment imperative - Whether parties misled or prejudiced - Whether doctrine of functus officio offended - Whether correction sought properly fell within court's jurisdiction under O. 20 r. 11 of Rules of Court 2012 JUDICIAL QUOTES“It must be understood that the obligation or duty to pay the maintenance charges and the sinking fund contributions arises from the statutory provisions, in particular, s. 16 of the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 and s. 25 of the Strata Management Act 2013. The obligation is not contractual or arises from the determination at the first AGM. The first AGM only determined the rate, not the obligation to pay. The JMB must manage the common property for all parcels. This is because the parcels exist within one development area, and the developer is the owner of the unsold parcels.” “This means that the parcel owners, whether residential or commercial, are liable to pay regardless of whether they attended or were absent at the first AGM, and whether they voted or objected to the same. Accordingly, the fact that when the resolutions were made at the first AGM, the commercial parcel owners did not attend and had no opportunity to vote on the resolutions, does not at all mean that they are exempted from the obligation to pay.” - Per Ong Chee Kwan JCA in Badan Pengurusan Bersama Gurney Paragon Residental v. Hunza Properties (Gurney) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 351 LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 4 (Part 2) Under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, a criminal attempt is established when an accused performs acts demonstrating a substantial step toward the commission of an offence. Physical possession of the contraband is not a prerequisite for a conviction of attempted trafficking. Once an accused has taken all necessary administrative or physical steps to procure a specific item, the transition from preparation to execution is complete, regardless of whether they successfully take the item into their possession. CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL LAW: Offence - Trafficking - Attempted trafficking of dangerous drugs - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a) - Accused attempted to collect parcel containing dangerous drugs at courier hub - Accused found guilty, convicted as per charge and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping - Whether there was substantial movement towards commission of offence - Whether actual physical possession prerequisite for conviction - Whether acts of 'receiving', 'procuring' or 'transporting' under s. 2 of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 established EVIDENCE: Conduct - Inference of knowledge - Accused attempted to collect parcel containing dangerous drugs at courier hub - Accused abruptly left courier hub and fled upon noticing arrival of enforcement officers - Whether relevant under s. 8 of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether conduct supported inference of knowledge of incriminating nature of parcel's contents - Whether tipped off by phone call CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Investigation - Deficient investigation - Act of attempting to collect parcel containing dangerous drugs at courier hub - Accused found guilty, convicted as per charge and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping - Allegation that accused was collecting parcel on behalf of third party - Whether duty on prosecution to locate individual where accused provided insufficient or scant particulars - Whether investigation adequate Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA
Under s. 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, an appeal is incompetent if it challenges the quantum of compensation or the factual evaluation of evidence, such as a judge's preference for one assessor's methodology over another's. Unless a clear error of law or a misapplication of legal principles is shown, the court's findings on valuation are final and non-appealable. LAND LAW | CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAND LAW: Acquisition - Compensation - Award - Land Administrator awarded landowners RM180 per square metre - High Court increased award to RM190 per square metre - Challenge against selection of comparables - Whether court could prefer sales comparable from different locality over one in immediate vicinity - Whether specific adjustments for location satisfied locality principle - Whether court justified in rejecting comparable as 'outlier' due to lack of supporting transaction evidence - Whether failure to provide specific reasoning for preferring one assessor over another's constituted error of law - Land Acquisition Act 1960, First Schedule, para. 1(1A) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Questions of law - Land reference proceedings - Challenge against quantum of compensation - Whether allowed - Whether grounds of appeal raised genuine questions of law or merely attacked factual findings and valuation principles - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 49(1)
Hashim Hamzah JCA
The implied undertaking enunciated in the case of Riddick v. Thomas Board Mills Limited, which restricts the use of documents obtained under legal compulsion to the specific proceedings in which they were disclosed, terminates once those documents are filed, admitted as evidence, and read in open court. Once documents enter the public domain through trial or the electronic filing system, the interest of open justice supersedes the protection of the disclosing party. Consequently, leave of court is no longer required to use such documents in separate or related proceedings. If a party wishes to maintain confidentiality after a document is filed or used in court, the burden of proof lies on that party to apply for a protective or sealing order. CIVIL PROCEDURE | EVIDENCE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Documents - Documents obtained under compulsion - Implied undertaking in Riddick v. Thomas Board Mills Limited - Effect of electronic filing system under O. 63A Rules of Court 2012 - Whether implied undertaking continues after documents filed and read in open court - Whether use of documents in related proceedings constitutes breach of undertaking - Whether leave of court required for use of documents already in public domain EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Bundle of documents - Documents produced via subpoena and discovery - Admission of documents in open court - Whether implied undertaking continues after documents filed and read in open court - Whether use of documents in related proceedings constitutes breach of undertaking - Whether leave of court required for use of documents already in public domain - Riddick v. Thomas Board Mills Limited
Azizah Nawawi JCA
Goods in transit are excluded from seizure and forfeiture under the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (TDA) on the fundamental basis that such items are not considered 'goods brought into the country'. Bona fide goods in transit must strictly remain in storage pending transshipment and must not be subjected to any activity of repackaging, re-exporting, or rebranding within a Free Zone. Section 5(1)(c) of the TDA explicitly states that its prohibition relates to acts of exposing goods for supply or having possession, custody, and control for the purpose of supplying such goods. The act of 'exposing for supply' connotes a commercial activity intended to inform consumers about the goods with an intent to sell. Where there is no evidence that goods have moved to warehouses for importation or have been purchased by Malaysian consignees, and where the goods remain outside the economic border without entering the domestic market, the consignor is not considered a party who exposes the goods for supply or who possesses them for the purpose of supplying goods to which a false trade description is applied. CUSTOMS AND EXCISE | WORDS & PHRASES
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: Seizure - Goods - Forfeiture of containers of cigarettes - Whether cigarettes in transhipment - Whether intended to be imported into Malaysia for sale - Whether consigner a party who exposed cigarettes for supply or had possession, custody and control to supply - Whether cigarettes bona fide goods in transit - Whether excluded from seizure and forfeiture - Trade Descriptions Act 2011, ss. 5(1)(c), 6(1)(g) - Trademarks Act 2019, s. 81 WORDS & PHRASES: 'goods in transit' - Trademarks Act 2019, s. 81 - Whether goods in transit goods not intended to be imported into country for purpose of use or sale - Whether goods brought within borders of Malaysia to remain transiently for purposes of transhipment to another country
Lim Chong Fong JCA
(i) Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with the law. Even where legislation confers wide powers on public authorities, those powers remain subject to constitutional limits. The validity of an administrative action depends on strict compliance with its governing statutory authority; once these limits are exceeded, any resulting deprivation of property is unlawful and constitutionally defective; (ii) Where evidence reveals the premature seizure of goods, reliance on an inapplicable statute and prolonged interference of property, the authorities have strayed beyond their lawful mandate. Such actions constitute an unlawful exercise of public power that deprives a party of possession and causes substantial loss. Damages must flow where public power has been unlawfully exercised. CUSTOMS AND EXCISE | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ENVIRONMENTAL LAW | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | TORT | DAMAGES
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: Goods - Importation - Inspection and detention of - Whether carried out prior to filing of Customs Form K-1 - Whether statutory pre-conditions prescribed under Customs Act 1967 and Environmental Quality Act 1974 satisfied - Whether authorities acted outside scope of lawful powers - Whether constituted excess of jurisdiction ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Exercise of administrative powers - Public authority - Reliance by Customs Department and Department of Environment on classification of goods rendered by Department of National Solid Waste Management - Whether Department of National Solid Waste Management body without jurisdiction in State of Perak - Failure to independently discharge statutory responsibilities - Whether rendered ensuing enforcement action ultra vires ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: Public authority - Classification of goods - Whether Department of National Solid Waste Management had lawful authority to inspect, classify or recommend enforcement action regarding imported goods - Whether Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 applicable in State of Perak - Whether action under inapplicable statute void CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal Constitution - Article 13 - Right to property - Infringement - Prolonged detention of imported goods - Whether effected without statutory foundation - Whether relied on authority lacking jurisdiction - Whether amounted to deprivation of property TORT: Damages - Claim for - Continued detention of goods without lawful authority - Whether constituted trespass to goods - Public authority interfered with possessory rights outside jurisdiction - Whether liability for trespass arose DAMAGES: Goods - Unlawful detention of - Whether there was foreseeable financial loss - Whether losses recoverable - Special and consequential damages Moses Susayan J
(i) A director's fiduciary obligations encompass the duty to protect the company's assets and to avoid conflicts of interest. These principles lie at the core of corporate stewardship. As such, a director who deliberately weakens or transfers a company's commercial value to a competing vehicle acts in contravention of that duty; (ii) The duty of fidelity requires a senior employee to refrain from participating in acts harmful to the employer. It is not a defence for an officer to rely on a superior's directions where such directions are manifestly detrimental to the company; (iii) The misuse of corporate power, the forgery of critical documents, the exploitation of entrusted positions to dismantle a functioning company and the calculated objective of harming a co-shareholder demonstrate a level of opprobrium that merits punitive sanctions. COMPANY LAW | COMPANY LAW | TORT
COMPANY LAW: Director - Breach of fiduciary duties - Whether director owed highest duty of loyalty and good faith - Whether encompasses duty to protect company's assets and refrain from diverting business opportunities to other entities - Whether director's actions resulted in leaving company structurally incapable of continuing business - Whether demonstrated clear intention to deceive and undermine integrity of company - Companies Act 2016, ss. 213 and 218 COMPANY LAW: Duty of fidelity - Fiduciary obligations - Breach of - Senior employees of company accepted directorships in competing entity - Whether adverse to company's interests - Whether affected company's commercial rights, regulatory relationships and assets - Whether conduct inconsistent with standard of fidelity expected of senior employees - Whether senior employees required to refrain from participating in acts harmful to employer - Whether senior employees fell within category of s. 581 of Companies Act 2016 TORT: Damages - Liability - Breach of fiduciary duties and obligations - Misuse of corporate power - Whether conduct directly caused company's commercial collapse and losses - Whether declaratory, injunctive, compensatory and exemplary relief appropriate - Whether injunctions sought fell within protective scope contemplated by s. 351 of Companies Act 2016 Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|