| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #26/2026
25 June 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
BANGGI QUARRY SDN BHD v. MENTERI TENAGA DAN SUMBER ASLI & ANOR [2026] 6 CLJ 167 A claim for monetary redress following a successful judicial review must be properly characterised as a private law claim for damages rather than 'constitutional compensation' when it stems from commercial interests under a revocable license rather than an infringement of fundamental rights. Procedurally, such claims must be expressly pleaded within the initial judicial review application pursuant to established rules of court to prevent the impermissible bifurcation of legal proceedings and to uphold the principle of finality in litigation. Damages for loss of profits cannot be awarded where the claim is based on purely hypothetical scenarios; without a foundation of actual operations or concrete evidence such as audited accounts and expert valuations, projected losses remain speculative and fail to meet the requisite legal threshold of proof. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Remedies - Damages - Application after conclusion of judicial review - Whether procedurally defective - Offshore sand mining licence terminated for failure to commence operations within deadline - High Court quashed termination in earlier judicial review application - Subsequent application for damages filed under Order 53 r. 5 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether claim for 'constitutional monetary compensation' distinct from common law damages - Assessment of damages - Whether loss of revenue or profits proved - Whether failure to commence operations precluded recovery of substantial damages CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to property - Federal Constitution, art. 13 - Revocable mining licence - Whether termination of commercial licence constituted infringement of fundamental rights - Constitutional monetary compensation - Whether available for private law commercial interests - Test for granting constitutional compensation DAMAGES: Quantum - Proof of loss - Special damages - Loss of profits and loss of revenue - Whether claim for loss of profits entirely hypothetical and speculative - Failure to adduce audited accounts, expert valuations, or business plans - Whether sufficient to establish actual loss - Duty of court to avoid speculation in constructing quantum of damages - Whether there was failure to meet threshold of proof APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 6 (Part 1) Pursuant to art. 121 of the Federal Constitution and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Malaysian High Court, being a creature of statute, does not possess original, appellate, or revisionary jurisdiction to review, set aside, or act as an appellate body over decisions rendered by international arbitral or administrative panels, such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation, under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ('UDRP'). A party who voluntarily submits to the specialised, self-contained UDRP process is bound by its outcome. Private forum selection or contractual agreements cannot override or confer statutory jurisdiction where none exists under federal laws. COURTS | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY | TORT
COURTS: Jurisdiction - High Court - Dispute over ownership and control of brand's internet domain names - Jurisdiction of High Court to review or set aside decision of World Intellectual Property Organisation administrative panel - Whether any statutory provision confers original, appellate, or revisionary jurisdiction on High Court to act as appellate or review body over international arbitral or administrative panels - Whether cause of action arose in Malaysia - Whether relevant facts occurred in Malaysia - Whether High Court possessed territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction - Whether private agreements could override express provisions in statutes - Federal Constitution, art. 121 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 18 to 37 - Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademarks - Domain names - Dispute - Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ('UDRP') - Finality of decisions - Whether party voluntarily submitting to UDRP process bound by outcome - Whether disappointed parties permitted to re-litigate same issues in national courts TORT: Abuse of process - Collateral abuse of process - Action filed in High Court to frustrate World Intellectual Property Organisation decision and prevent transfer of domain names - Whether litigants aware of lack of jurisdiction and valid cause of action - Whether filing of action constituted collateral abuse of process - Whether court possessed inherent jurisdiction to award damages without separate assessment proceedings TORT: Unlawful interference with trade - Elements of - Dispute over ownership and control of brand's internet domain names - Claim for unlawful interference with trade - Whether elements satisfied Mohd Nazlan Ghazali FCJ
(i) A clear distinction exists between the investigation of an offence for the purpose of arrest or detention, and the investigation of a charge, for the purpose of summary dealing or a court-martial. Compliance with s. 95 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 and r. 33 of the Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 ('Rules') is mandatory before a charge can be properly investigated. Failure to fulfil these statutory requirements constitutes a substantial miscarriage of justice; (ii) The requirements under r. 36(2) of the Rules are not mere formalities. They are fundamental components of natural justice and the presumption of innocence. Non-compliance deprives the accused of the right to remain silent and the opportunity to prepare a proper defence. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ARMED FORCES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Procedural impropriety - Member of armed forces found guilty of charges and discharged for misconduct - Conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline - Investigation of charges - Distinction between investigation of offence and investigation of charge - Whether statutory requirements under s. 95 of Armed Forces Act 1972 and rr. 33 and 36 of Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 complied with - Whether there was miscarriage of justice ARMED FORCES: Court-martial - Disciplinary proceedings - Summary dealing - Member of armed forces charged for conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline - Mandatory obligation to provide abstract of evidence and administer caution - Whether procedures under Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 complied with ARMED FORCES: Court-martial - Charges - Defective charges - Member of armed forces charged for conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline - Charges failed to specify details of alleged offences - Whether there was prejudice - Whether charges sustainable - Armed Forces Act 1972 - Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976
Mariana Yahya JCA
(i) In corporate insolvency scenarios, undocumented payments or 'reimbursements' to directors are treated with inherent judicial distrust due to their insider control over corporate finances. To escape personal liability, directors bear a strict legal burden to prove the legitimacy and actual disbursement of any prior loans using cogent documentary evidence rather than mere bare assertions. Authorising corporate funds without proper documentation or a legitimate business purpose constitutes a severe breach of both common law fiduciary duties and statutory obligations to act in good faith, for a proper purpose, and without conflict; (ii) Pre-petition settlement payments made to independent corporate creditors under genuine commercial pressure to avert an imminent corporate collapse do not constitute a fraudulent preference, especially where directors have personal 'skin in the game' through personal guarantees. However, post-petition payments made via post-dated cheques to satisfy pre-existing judgment debts will not be granted a validation order, as unnotified good faith cannot justify validation for past debts where the payment merely diminishes the company's estate, alters creditor priorities, and fails to benefit the general body of unsecured creditors. COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Liquidator - Powers and functions - Recovery of assets - Five conjoined appeals arising from impugned transactions preceding and following presentation of winding-up petition - Monies paid out by directors to themselves and alternate director within two years prior to presentation date - Whether voluntary settlements made without valuable consideration or good faith - Whether void - Determination of twilight period - Whether six month or two-year period applicable - Insolvency Act 1967, s. 53 - Companies Act 1965, s. 293 COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Fraudulent preference - Intention to prefer - Whether settlement of pre-existing judgment debt - Payments made to corporate creditor via post-dated cheques during six-month twilight period preceding presentation date - Whether proof of dominant intention to prefer - Whether payment made to benefit creditor or to avert corporate collapse under commercial pressure - Companies Act 1965, s. 293 - Insolvency Act 1967, s. 53 COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Disposition of property - Validation order - Application by creditor for validation order - Post-dated cheque presented and paid after filing of winding-up petition - Cheque issued to satisfy pre-existing judgment debt - Whether lack of knowledge of winding-up petition per se justified validation - Whether payment benefiting general body of creditors or diminishing estate - Principles governing exercise of judicial discretion - Circumstances in which court may properly grant validation of payments otherwise void against liquidator COMPANY LAW: Directors - Duties - Breach of duty - Liquidator discovering substantial payments received by directors, majority shareholders, and alternate directors via private examination - Whether directors paid out company monies in breach of fiduciary and statutory obligations - Determination of scope of directors' duties in twilight period - Companies Act 1965, s. 249
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA (Civil Appeal No: J-02(NCvC)(W)-761-05-2023)
Under r. 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, the Court of Appeal possesses the inherent power to strike out appeals to prevent an abuse of process, such as when there is no reasonable prospect of a hearing, and conversely, to reinstate them under r. 1A to prevent injustice, particularly where the merits have not yet been ventilated. Once an appeal against an acquittal is reinstated, it falls within the ambit of s. 56A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, granting the court discretionary power to issue a warrant of arrest. The court may also exercise its discretion to grant bail, taking into account factors such as the accused's employment status, previous compliance with bail conditions, and the absence of flight risk, thereby negating the need for the surrender of travel documents. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Court of Appeal - Striking out and reinstatement - Appeal struck out for failure to serve notice on respondent - Whether appellate court had power to reinstate appeal previously struck out - Merits of appeal not yet ventilated - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rr. 1A & 105 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Acquittal - Warrant of arrest - Issuance of warrant of arrest against respondent - Whether appellate court had power to issue warrant - Whether a judicial act - Presumption of lawfulness - Discretion of court - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 56A - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(e) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Bail - Application for - Application for bail pending appeal against acquittal - Discretionary power of Court of Appeal - Factors for consideration - Respondent's occupation and conduct during trial - Impact of High Court's acquittal order - Whether respondent a flight risk - Conditions of bail - Whether surrender of international passport necessary - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 56A
Wong Kian Kheong JCA
For a customer to be estopped from asserting forgery under s. 24 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1949 ('BEA'), there must be a clear and unequivocal representation that the forged signatures are effective and the instrument is valid for payment. To invoke the statutory defence under s. 73A of the BEA, the bank must prove a specific causal nexus between the customer's conduct and the act of forgery itself. Generalised negligence, such as internal administrative imprudence or a failure to review bank statements, does not satisfy the requirement of a knowing or a negligent contribution to the forgery. BANKING | EVIDENCE | LIMITATION
BANKING: Banks and banking business - Cheques - Forged signatures - Forgery of authorised signatures on cheques by director - Claim for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty - Whether bank acted in breach of duty in paying out on impugned cheques - Whether customer made clear and unequivocal representation that forged signatures were effective - Whether customer's internal delegation of banking affairs to single director constituted estoppel - Whether there was specific causal nexus between customer's conduct and act of forgery - Whether failure to review bank statements amounted to knowing or negligent contribution to forgery - Bills of Exchange Act 1949, ss. 24 & 73A EVIDENCE: Witness - Expert evidence - Handwriting expert - Forged signatures - Forgery of authorised signatures on cheques by director - Claim for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against bank - Credibility of expert witness - Weight to be given to expert witness testimony LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual - Period of limitation - Forgery of authorised signatures on cheques by director - Claim for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against bank - Recovery of monies debited from account via forged cheques - Whether limitation period ran from date of each debit - Whether requirements for fraud or concealment met - Limitation Act 1953, ss. 6 & 29 Lee Swee Seng JCA (Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCvC)(W)-1851-11-2023)
To rely on the presumption of possession under s. 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the prosecution must establish that the accused had exclusive control of the premises, or in this case the vehicle. If the accused provides a positive assertion that the items in the vehicle do not belong to them, and the evidence shows others had recent access to the vehicle, the presumption of possession and knowledge is rebutted on a balance of probabilities. Knowledge remains an essential element of possession; if the accused disproves the presumed fact of knowledge, the conviction cannot stand. CRIMINAL LAW | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW: Offence - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Discovery of drugs in zipper bag hidden under clothes in back seat of car - Car borrowed by accused from owner only hours before arrest - Accused found guilty, convicted and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment - Whether presumption of possession rebutted - Whether accused had exclusive custody and control of car - Whether there was failure of prosecution to exclude access of other persons to car - Whether appellant had knowledge of drugs - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37(d) & 39B(1)(a) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Discovery of drugs in zipper bag hidden under clothes in back seat of car - Car borrowed by accused from owner only hours before arrest - Accused found guilty, convicted and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment - Whether accused had exclusive custody and control of car - Whether failure to call owner of car as witness fatal to prosecution's case - Whether appellant had knowledge of drugs - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37(d) & 39B(1)(a) EVIDENCE: Witness - Failure to call material witness - Owner of car - Discovery of drugs in zipper bag hidden under clothes in back seat of car - Car borrowed by accused from owner only hours before arrest - Positive assertion by accused that items in car belonged to owner - Whether prosecution's failure to call car owner fatal error Azman Abdullah JCA
In prosecutions under s. 45A(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 ('Act'), the procedures prescribed under the Motor Vehicles (Breath, Blood and Urine Tests) Rules 1995 ('Rules') are mandatory rather than discretionary. While s. 45C of the Act governs the provision of samples, it must be read in conjunction with the Rules to determine the lawful manner of testing. Any deviation from these technical procedures constitutes procedural non-compliance that undermines the integrity of the scientific result. ROAD TRAFFIC
ROAD TRAFFIC: Dangerous Driving - Driving under influence of alcohol - Breath test - Procedures - Whether compliance with procedures under Motor Vehicles (Breath, Blood and Urine Tests) Rules 1995 mandatory or discretionary - Deviations in handling of Evidential Breath Analyser - Whether technical non-compliance fatal to prosecution's case - Road Transport Act 1987, ss. 45A(1), 45B & 45C
Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin J
(i) When assessing the monetary jurisdiction of a lower court in representative or joint proceedings, the court's statutory limit is determined by the value of each individual, independent claim rather than the cumulative mathematical aggregate of all claims heard together; (ii) An administrative transfer of a Sessions Court Judge does not nullify a judgment delivered post-transfer. Furthermore, practice directions are administrative instruments for case management and do not have the force of law; hence, they cannot restrict, expand, or extinguish statutory jurisdiction; (iii) A payment made under a letter of intent to secure a property unit, even if held by a third-party solicitor as a stakeholder prior to the formal launch, constitutes a booking fee if it is retained and forms part of a transaction continuum leading to a formal sale and purchase agreement ('SPA'). Consequently, the calculation of liquidated ascertained damages for late delivery runs from the date of that initial payment, not the date of the SPA. COURTS | LAND LAW | CONTRACT
COURTS: Jurisdiction - Sessions Court - Monetary jurisdiction - Multiple individual claims brought together in representative proceeding for reasons of procedural economy - Aggregate of awards exceeded statutory limit of RM1 million - Whether court's jurisdiction to be assessed by reference to each individual claim or by arithmetical aggregation of all claims - Whether Sessions Court exceeded monetary jurisdiction COURTS: Jurisdiction - Sessions Court - Territorial jurisdiction - Presiding Sessions Court Judge administratively transferred from Kuala Lumpur to Kuala Terengganu prior to delivering reserved judgment - Local limits of jurisdiction - Whether administrative transfer rendered judgment a nullity - Whether administrative practice directions could restrict, expand, or substitute statutory jurisdiction - Subordinate Courts Act 1948, s. 59(1) & (2) LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Delay - Calculation of liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') - Purchaser executed letter of intent ('LOI') and paid sums to developer's solicitors prior to formal launch - Purchase price subsequently paid and sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') executed - Whether sums paid under LOI constituted 'booking fee' - Whether LAD should run from date of initial payment of sums or from date of SPA - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Housing development - Late delivery of vacant possession - Calculation of liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') - Whether LAD should be calculated on gross purchase price - Whether amounted to unjust enrichment - Whether LAD restitutionary or discretionary - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 Moh Kok Wai JC
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|