CASE SPOTLIGHTS
HISHAM HALIM v. MAYA AHMAD FUAAD & ORS [2026] 2 CLJ 29
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI JCA
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN JCA
LEONARD DAVID SHIM JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-01(A)-360-07-2023]
13 NOVEMBER 2025
(i) The granting of leave by a Syariah Court to issue a notice to show cause in contempt proceedings is not a judicially reviewable decision under O. 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, as it is merely an initial, procedural step that does not alter the applicant's rights or obligations or meet the threshold of a final, appealable decision; (ii) A judicial review application that fundamentally constitutes an 'incompetency challenge' must be initiated through an application for leave at the Federal Court under art. 4(4) of the Federal Constitution, and not by filing a judicial review at the High Court. Failure to follow this proper procedure results in a lack of jurisdiction for the High Court to entertain the matter.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Locus standi - Application to quash notice to show cause in committal proceedings - Leave granted by Syariah Court to issue notice to show cause - Whether leave granted 'decision' amenable to judicial review - Whether issuance of notice to show cause merely initial, procedural step - Whether applicant's rights or obligations altered or deprived - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 2(4)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Limitation - Application for judicial review, seeking declaration that Syariah Court lacked jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt of court in connection with committal proceedings - Whether application filed within prescribed time-limit - Whether High Court seized with jurisdiction to consider application - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(6)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - Syariah Court - Contempt of court - Challenge to State Legislature's power to enact laws empowering Syariah Courts to hold persons in contempt - Challenge mounted by way of judicial review - Whether challenge essentially 'incompetency challenge' - Whether proper procedure followed in mounting challenge - Federal Constitution, art. 4(4)
JUDICIAL QUOTES
“The law should not rob parties off its right to decide how best to deal and manage their affairs. There may be instances where parties would identify that it is more beneficial for them to just let sleeping dogs lie and move on from the dispute in pursuit of other business opportunities elsewhere. There might be instances where parties might identify that it is not ideal to foot the bill of an expensive arbitration and just write off the debt it believed to be owed by the other party. It would squarely transgress the business common sense rule of interpretation if parties would be denied all this typical and common business liberties and was 'forced' to further muddy the waters that the parties themselves have identified to be not worth it to (or be disinclined to) expend or expand on ... the courts in recent times have preferred a business common sense rule of interpretation even in cases where there were no ambiguities in a written clause of a contract).” – Per Azimah Omar JCA in Apex Communications Sdn Bhd v. Sumber Khazanah Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal (In Liquidation) [2026] 2 CLJ 477; [2025] CLJU 3046
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2025] CLJU 241
|
GENISYS INTEGRATED ENGINEERS PTE LTD v. ONN KIEN HOE & ANOR
There must be some justifiable reason for the removal of liquidators. Failure of the liquidators to faithfully exercise their statutory duties and further failure to apply reasonable skill and exercised due diligence in concluding the liquidation of the company expeditiously are sufficient cause and justifiable reason to remove the liquidators. The fact that the liquidators have taken over many years and yet are unable to close the liquidation process indicates a lack of professionalism by the liquidators, especially when the company is solvent.
COMPANY LAW: Liquidators - Removal of - Misappropriation of moniesby company's staff from company's bank accounts and fixed deposits which were maintained and controlled by liquidators - Gross negligence and dereliction of duties for several years - Unprofessional conduct - Lack of urgency in closing liquidation process - Whether company solvent - Whether liquidators failed to act independently - Whether liquidator's conduct indicated a lack of professionalism - Whether there was sufficient cause to enable Court to exercise its discretion to remove liquidators
- For the applicant - Gideon Tan & Ashvinpal Kaur Joginder Singh; M/s Gideon Tan Razali Zaini
- For the respondent - Kirubakaran, Martin Cho Cheng Yu & Yeo Yen Hock; M/s Shui Tai
|
|
[2025] CLJU 249
|
LOW WEE HENG v. MY US FOOD SDN BHD
1. Where general damages are readily proven on affidavit evidence in a summary judgment application, the prayer for damages to be assessed does not preclude the court ordering final summary judgment with the damages as assessed based on such affidavit evidence.
2. A sale of a premise by the landlord with the third party buyer which took place while the tenancy agreement was still afoot, constituting a prima facie breach of the tenancy agreement relating to option to purchase. If an offer came in from the third party buyer to the landlord, then the landlord was obliged to notify and give the tenant the right of first refusal. It is irrelevant that the tenancy agreement was due to expire as non-renewal of the tenancy did not necessarily mean that the tenant had no interest in purchasing the premises.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Tenancy – Refusal to vacate premises after expiry of tenancy agreement - Claim for double rental, costs of lift repair, restoration costs and unpaid utility bills - - Premise sold to third party - Whether plaintiff's claim pleaded in statement of claim - Whether quantification of damages satisfactorily proven on affidavit evidence - Whether termination of agreement wrongful - Whether landlord had locus standi to sue tenant - Whether landlord's claim amounted to antecedent contractual breach giving rise to claim for damages
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Counterclaim - Action by tenant against landlord - Breach of tenancy agreement - Offer to purchase - Whether landlord breached option to purchase - Whether breach of option to purchase a triable issue
- For the plaintiff - Tan Yee Chian; M/s KS Chew & Associates
- For the defendant - Meera Krishnar Ragupathy; M/s Amareson & Meera
|
|
[2025] CLJU 250
|
SABNA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. HARTA KEMUNCHAK SDN BHD
A vendor's refusal to furnish a power of attorney and execute the memorandum of transfer for titles which are remaining in the vendor's name on request constitutes a breach of the sale and purchase agreement. The vendor cannot refuse to furnish a power of attorney and execute the memorandum of transfer merely on the basis that the initial power of attorney had expired. As an incorporated entity, the vendor has no natural lifespan and can theoretically exist indefinitely which allows the vendor to bear obligations that can extend perpetually. Refusal to furnish a power of attorney and execute the memorandum of transfer will cause serious prejudice to the purchasers of the units in the development.
CONTRACT: Specific performance - Sale and purchase of agreement - Refusal of vendor to furnish power of attorney and execute the Memorandum of Transfer - Initial power of attorney expired - Whether power of attorney should be renewed - Whether vendor's refusal to furnish power of attorney and execute memorandum of transfer for titles remaining in vendor's name on request of purchaser constituted breach of sale and purchase agreement - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 11
- For the plaintiff - Cheryl Leong See Teng, Choon Hon Leong & Teh Yi Huang; M/s Sanjay Mohan
- For the defendant - Chanravathane S Ponnudurai; M/s SP Chanra
|
|
[2025] CLJU 240
|
PHANG SIN KIEN lwn. PANG SHYIAN JUANG
Seorang 'residue beneficiary' tidak mempunyai kepentingan boleh kaveat ke atas hartanah pusaka yang belum ditadbir dengan sempurna oleh pentadbir. Kepentingan boleh kaveat mestilah kepentingan pada masa sekarang dan tidak boleh menjangkau kepada kemungkinan atau jangkaan masa depan. Justeru, seorang pentadbir harta pusaka yang dilantik melalui undang-undang mempunyai kuasa yang sah untuk mentadbir dan menguruskan pembahagian suatu hartanah pusaka, termasuklah membuat permohonan membatalkan kaveat persendirian di bawah s. 327 Kanan Tanah Negara 1965.
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pemilikan - Tuntutan hakmilik - Milikan dan jagaan dokumen hakmilik - Permohonan oleh pentadbir hartanah pusaka - Sama ada perintah pentadbiran dan pembahagian yang melantik plaintif sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka adalah sah dan berkuatkuasa
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Kaveat - Kaveat persendirian - Pembatalan - Permohonan oleh pentadbir hartanah pusaka - Kaveat dimasukkan oleh cucu si mati - Permohonan dibuat oleh 'residue beneficiary' ke atas hartanah pusaka - Sama ada 'residue beneficiary' mempunyai kepentingan boleh kaveat ke atas harta pusaka yang belum ditadbir dengan sempurna oleh pentadbir - Sama ada kepentingan boleh kaveat boleh berdasarkan jangkauan kepada kemungkinan atau jangkaan masa depan
- Bagi pihak plaintif/pemohon - Clement Chong; T/n Ez Pang & Co
- Bagi pihak defendan/responden - KC Chan; T/n KC Chan
|
|
[2025] CLJU 246
|
MUHAMAD NABIL HANIF M REDZUAN lwn. MUHAMMAD ALIF FAHMI ZAINURIN & YANG LAIN
Rekod rayuan turut termasuk rekod rayuan tambahan kerana bagi tujuan pendengaran mana-mana rayuan, rekod rayuan hendaklah mengandungi dokumen yang lengkap. Sesuatu rekod rayuan yang tidak lengkap hendaklah dilengkapkan melalui rekod rayuan tambahan. Maka, pengiraan tempoh 14 hari yang diperuntukkan di bawah A. 55 k. 8 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 adalah dikira berdasarkan penyerahan rekod rayuan tambahan dan bukannya hanya selepas penyerahan rekod rayuan.
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Notis rayuan - Pembatalan - Pemfailan rayuan di luar tempoh masa - Rayuan difailkan di bawah A. 55 k. 8 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Rayuan balas plaintif difailkan enam minggu selepas notis rayuan defendan difailkan - Bantahan berkaitan pemfailan notis rayuan tidak dibangkitkan semasa pengurusan kes - Sama ada had masa pemfailan rekod rayuan bermula dari tarikh penyampaian rekod rayuan atau rekod rayuan tambahan - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai kuasa budi bicara untuk melanjutkan tempoh masa pemfailan notis rayuan - Sama ada terdapat alasan munasabah untuk perlanjutan masa
- Bagi pihak plaintif - Noorranik Nik Sufian; T/n Zufaidi & Associates
- Bagi pihak defendan pertama - Wan Jawahir Harun; T/n Wan Jawahir & Takiyuddin
|
CLJ 2026 Volume 1 (Part 6)
(i) A default judgment in the form of a declaration typically cannot be made without the court considering the merits of the case. For declaratory relief, the court will require some level of scrutiny of the merits of the claim before making the order. Courts generally do not grant declaratory relief in default without an evidential basis and argument to support the claim, as doing so without the court's sanction and review of the facts may be seen as a denial of procedural fairness; (ii) In the absence of supporting evidence, a trial judge is not bound by the terms of the court order to grant a default judgment on the basis of mere non-compliance of the said order.
Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penyiaran Malaysia & Anor v. Vertex Blue Consulting Sdn Bhd [2026] 1 CLJ 859 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Peremptory order - Unless order - Non-compliance - Whether resulted in defence and counterclaim being struck out - Whether trial judge bound by terms of order to grant default judgment on basis of non-compliance - Whether default judgment containing declaratory order made without benefit of evidence - Whether default judgment in form of declaration could be made without court considering merits of case - Whether declaratory reliefs require level of scrutiny of merits of claim before making order - Whether proper judgment on merits
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Default judgment - Whether trial judge bound by terms of order to grant default judgment on basis of non-compliance - Whether default judgment containing declaratory order made without benefit of evidence - Whether default judgment in form of declaration could be made without court considering merits of case - Whether declaratory reliefs require level of scrutiny of merits of claim before making order - Whether proper judgment on merits
Abu Bakar Jais PCA
Hasnah Mohammed Hashim CJ (Malaya)
Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera FCJ
- For the appellant - Nur Irmawatie Daud & Saravanan Kuppusamy; SFCs
- For the respondent - Ariff Rozhan, Christopher Arun Francis, Sylvie Tan & Nurul Farhani Kamarudin; M/s Ariff Rozhan & Co
A loan agreement that has been varied, altered or modified without the prior consent of the Registrar of Moneylenders appointed pursuant to the Moneylenders Act 1951 is null, void and unenforceable. Consequently, where the agreement is void, the other loan agreements in the same transaction must be avoided too. However, such contravention does not tantamount to illegality in the s. 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 ('CA') sense. Since the contract is found void, the restitutionary remedy pursuant to s. 66 of the CA is correct and appropriate.
KBH Marine Industry Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Ace Credit (M) Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2026] 1 CLJ 881 [CA]
MONEYLENDERS | CONTRACT
MONEYLENDERS: Moneylending transaction - Loan - Borrower and moneylender entered into moneylending agreement - Loan agreement failed to comply with provisions and prescribed forms - Whether valid - Whether all related documents void - Whether nature of contravention serious - Whether contravention of statute tantamount to illegality - Restitutionary remedy - Whether s. 66 of Contracts Act 1950 applicable
CONTRACT: Remedies - Restitution - Borrower and moneylender entered into moneylending agreement - Loan agreement failed to comply with provisions and prescribed forms - Whether loan agreement and all related documents void - Whether contravention tantamount to illegality under s. 24 of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether loan agreement wholly performed - Restitutionary remedy - Whether s. 66 of Contracts Act 1950 applicable
Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali JCA
Lim Chong Fong JCA
Alwi Abdul Wahab JCA
(Civil Appeal No: P-02(IM)(NCvC)-335-03-2023)
- For the 1st & 2nd appellants - Tan Swee Cheng & Daphne Choy Gaik Choo; M/s SC Tan
- For the respondent - Dinesh Nandrajog, Loo Man Keith & Lim Chun Yen; M/s Peter Ling & Van Geyzel
(Civil Appeal No: P-02(IM (NCvC)-336-03-2023)
- For the appellant - Dinesh Nandrajog, Loo Man Keith & Lim Chun Yen; M/s Peter Ling & Van Geyzel
- For the 1st & 2nd respondents - Tan Swee Cheng & Daphne Choy Gaik Choo; M/s SC Tan
- For the 3rd & 4th respondents - Rajakumaran Muthusamy; M/s Ram Yogan Sivam
- For the 5th, 6th & 7th respondents - M/s Yeoh Shim Siow & Lay Kuan
- For the 8th & 9th respondents - David Tan Hong Kai; M/s Presgrave & Matthews
(Civil Appeal No: P-02(IM)(NCvC)-337-03-2023)
- For the appellant - Dinesh Nandrajog, Loo Man Keith & Lim Chun Yen; M/s Peter Ling & Van Geyzel
- For the 1st & 4th respondents - Rajakumaran Muthusamy; M/s Ram Yogan Sivam
- For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Tan Swee Cheng & Daphne Choy Gaik Choo; M/s SC Tan
- For the 5th, 6th & 7th respondents - M/s Yeoh Shim Siow & Lay Kuan
- For the 8th & 9th respondents - David Tan Hong Kai; M/s Presgrave & Matthews
(Civil Appeal No: P-02(IM)(NCvC)-384-03-2023)
- For the 1st & 2nd appellants - Rajakumaran Muthusamy; M/s Ram Yogan Sivam
- For the respondent - Dinesh Nandrajog, Loo Man Keith & Lim Chun Yen; M/s Peter Ling & Van Geyzel
Apabila bukti penting wujud secara muktamad yang boleh membuktikan kes pendakwaan tetapi tidak dikemukakan, tertuduh mesti diberi faedah keraguan. Kegagalan mengemukakan bukti utama, terutamanya apabila kewujudannya dibuktikan, boleh menjejaskan kes pendakwaan dan menyokong versi pembelaan. Ini juga boleh membentuk jurang pembuktian yang teruk, serta inferens buruk boleh dibuat terhadap pihak pendakwaan.
PP lwn. Faizoull Ahmad & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2026] 1 CLJ 913 [CA]
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 409 - Pecah amanah jenayah - Sama ada tertuduh dengan curangnya melupuskan wang dan meluluskan pembayaran tanpa kelulusan Lembaga Pengarah FELDA ('Lembaga') - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan rakaman audio mesyuarat - Sama ada bukti kritikal berkaitan mesyuarat Lembaga - Sama ada kegagalan mengemukakan bukti utama menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Wujudnya dua set minit mesyuarat - Sama ada percanggahan menimbulkan keraguan besar tentang ketepatan dan kebolehpercayaan versi pendakwaan - Sama ada terdapat jurang pembuktian yang teruk - Sama ada inferens buruk harus dibuat terhadap pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan melampaui keraguan munasabah bahawa tertuduh bertindak secara tidak jujur - Sama ada terdapat salah arah serius undang-undang - Sama ada mahkamah wajar campur tangan
Azmi Ariffin HMR
Noorin Badaruddin HMR
Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu - Mohd Radzi Shah Ab Razak & Elyza Amira Habeeb Rahman; TPR
- Bagi pihak responden - Sukri Hj Mohamed, Melissa Sukri, Syed Muhammad Syafiq Syed Abu Bakar & Che Mohd Azim Che Hamat; T/n Wan Haron Sukri & Nordin
A tortfeasor is liable for defamation when a published statement refers to the claimant and is defamatory in its ordinary and natural meaning – specifically by imputing criminality, professional misconduct, misgovernance, or legal non-compliance – and the defendant fails to establish a valid defence. The use of words imputing criminality, like 'pencuri' in a political context, as in this case, is highly defamatory as it severely damages the claimant's reputation and may shift public perception of events from civil or administrative issues to serious crimes.
Dato' Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor v. Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail [2026] 1 CLJ 945 [HC]
TORT
TORT: Defamation - Claim - Statements made by politician/tortfeasor against another politician/claimant during election campaign - Allegations that claimant misused funds and was involved in misconduct - Whether statements bore defamatory imputations - Whether statements referred to or reflected on claimant's reputation - Whether statements published to third person by tortfeasor - Whether case of defamation established - Whether tortfeasor established valid defence - Whether claimant entitled to damages - Amount of damages to be awarded
- For the plaintiff - Wan Rohimi Wan Daud, Yusfarizal Yussof, Mohd Faizi Che Abu & Nur Iffah Hizwani Omar; M/s Faizi & Assocs
- For the defendant - Navpreet Singh, William Leong & Sakina Siraj; M/s Nav & Co
(i) Section 33B(4) of the Insolvency Act 1967 ('IA') confers the right on creditors to apply to court to prohibit the Director General of Insolvency ('DGI') from issuing a certificate discharging a judgment debtor from bankruptcy. It aims not only to protect creditors from unfair discharges, but to also ensure honest bankrupts get a fresh start. If the court is restricted, in such application, to making only the order under s. 33B(6)(a) or s. 33B(6)(b) of the IA and nothing else, a bankrupt who fraudulently concealed assets can still get discharged after two years, and creditors with legitimate objections would be left without recourse. Thus, it cannot be the intention of the Legislature by enacting the provision of s. 33B(6)(a) to (b) of the IA that court has no power to make other orders to prevent injustice in the circumstances; (ii) Although the DGI possesses discretionary authority to issue a certificate of discharge, it is, however, incumbent upon the DGI to substantiate the exercise of that discretion with proper evidential material placed before the court. Mere assertions or unsubstantiated contentions are insufficient. If the DGI fails to faithfully perform his statutory duties or comply with legal requirements, or if a creditor lodges a complaint, the court is obliged to inquire into the matter and may take any action it deems expedient. This provides the court's supervisory authority over the DGI to ensure accountability and proper execution of duties.
Re Madzehi; Ex Parte: Maybank Islamic Bhd [2026] 1 CLJ 989 [HC]
BANKRUPTCY
BANKRUPTCY: Discharge - Discharge of bankrupt - Application by judgment creditor ('JC') for order prohibiting Director General of Insolvency ('DGI') from issuing certificate of discharge to judgment debtor - Whether objection notice by JC furnished out of time - Whether JC's application procedurally defective - Whether DGI properly exercised discretion in deciding to issue certificate of discharge - Insolvency Act 1967, s. 33A, 33B - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 12
BANKRUPTCY: Discharge - Discharge of bankrupt - Application by judgment creditor for order prohibiting Director General of Insolvency ('DGI') from issuing certificate of discharge to judgment debtor - Whether court's power or jurisdiction strictly limited to two courses of action prescribed in ss. 33B(6)(a) and 33B(6)(b) of Insolvency Act 1967 - Whether s. 33B(6) ought to be construed harmoniously with s. 33B(4) - Whether court has supervisory authority over DGI to ensure accountability and proper execution of duties - Insolvency Act 1967, ss. 87, 91
- For the judgment creditor - Christopher Hii Ru Yee; M/s Yong & Wong Advocs
- For the judgment debtor - Jennifer Melian; Malaysian Insolvency Department (Sibu Branch)
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
-
THE REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION OF FORMER DETAINEES IN MALAYSIA
[Read excerpt]
by Haezreena Begum binti Abdul Hamid* [2026] CLJU(A) xi
[2026] CLJU(A) xi
MALAYSIA
THE REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION OF FORMER DETAINEES IN MALAYSIA
by
Haezreena Begum binti Abdul Hamid*
ABSTRACT
This article examines the rehabilitation and reintegration of former combatants, returnees, and ex-detainees in Malaysia, drawing on qualitative interviews with 11 participants. Reintegration emerges not as a straightforward "return home" but as a complex process shaped by surveillance, stigma, economic exclusion, and unresolved trauma. While Malaysian prisons emphasise religious counselling during incarceration, post-release interventions are largely ad hoc, consisting of casual "check-ins" by enforcement officers with little structured support. This theology-centric and security-driven approach risks producing only superficial disengagement, leaving underlying grievances unaddressed. Comparative analysis of Saudi Arabia's al-Munasahah programme, Denmark's Aarhus model, and Indonesia's BNPT framework demonstrates how more holistic interventions, combining psychological care, vocational training, community acceptance, and family support, enhance reintegration outcomes. The findings reveal that in Malaysia, barriers such as financial blacklisting, statelessness, and community stigma undermine long-term reintegration. At the same time, enablers like family ties, faith renewal, and employment provide pathways to stability. This study argues that effective reintegration must move beyond surveillance and ideology to embed rights-based frameworks that integrate psychosocial care, livelihood opportunities, and community trust-building. Without such reforms, Malaysia risks perpetuating cycles of exclusion and vulnerability to re-radicalisation, weakening the very security it seeks to preserve.
. . .
-
KEYNOTE ADDRESS FOR THE SCL(S) CONFERENCE 2025: TRANSFORMATION IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY SECTORS
SINGLE JOINT EXPERTS: HAS THEIR TIME COME?+
[Read excerpt]
by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam* [2026] CLJU(A) xii
[2026] CLJU(A) xii
SINGAPORE
KEYNOTE ADDRESS FOR THE SCL(S) CONFERENCE 2025: TRANSFORMATION IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY SECTORS
SINGLE JOINT EXPERTS: HAS THEIR TIME COME?+
by
Justice Philip Jeyaretnam*
I. Introduction
1. It is timely for this conference to focus on the energy sector and its transformation. Energy demand is rising given the computing needs of the AI revolution and the growth in digital assets. At the same time, the falling cost of renewables such as solar power offers the promise of abundant cheap energy. Getting from here – beset as we are by the extreme weather effects of climate change – to a stable and indeed transformed future is the challenge of the day. The role of construction lawyers and other building professionals includes helping to manage and reduce transaction costs that might otherwise hinder the needed expansion and transformation of the energy sector. One aspect of transaction costs concerns the efficiency of resolving disputes when they arise. Efficiency is both a matter of time and costs.
2. This brings me to the role of expert witnesses and how such important evidence can best be managed for both effectiveness and efficiency. Expert witnesses play a very important role in infrastructure disputes. Such experts may be architects, building surveyors, engineers, quantity surveyors or others. The decision-maker will often need assistance on technical questions, such as structural support, ground conditions, delay and quantum.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
| Number |
Title |
In force from |
Repealed |
Superseded |
| ACT 876 |
Anti-Bully Act 2026 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 875 |
Measures for the Collection, Administration and Enforcement of Tax Act 2025 |
Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 6; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 14; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 31 and the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 41 |
- |
- |
| ACT 874 |
Finance Act 2025 |
Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 19; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 25; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 31 and the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 33 |
- |
- |
| ACT 873 |
Consumer Credit Act 2025 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 872 |
Gig Workers Act 2025 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| AKTA 711 |
Akta Perlindungan Pemberi Maklumat 2010 |
AKTA A1777 |
15 Januari 2026 [PU(B) 14/2026] |
Seksyen 2, 5A, 6, 7 dan 11 |
| ACT 711 |
Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 |
ACT A1777 |
15 January 2026 [PU(B) 14/2026] |
Sections 2, 5A, 6, 7 and 11 |
| AKTA 445 |
Akta Cukai Aktiviti Perniagaan Labuan 1990 |
AKTA 875 |
1 Januari 2026 - Seksyen 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 dan 40, perenggan 39(a), (b), (f), (g) dan (h) dan subperenggan 39(c)(ii); 1 Januari 2027 - Subperenggan 39(c)(i) dan perenggan 39(d) dan (e) |
Seksyen 3A, 5, 6A, 10, 18A, 21A, 21B, 21C dan 28 |
| AKTA 169 |
Akta Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah 1976 |
AKTA 875 |
1 Januari 2026 - Seksyen 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 dan 12; 1 Januari 2027 - Seksyen 13 |
Seksyen 13, 13A, 19A, 36, 43A, 51 dan 57A |
| AKTA 445 |
Akta Cukai Aktiviti Perniagaan Labuan 1990 |
AKTA 874 |
1 Januari 2026 |
Seksyen 12 |
Revoked
|
