| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #9/2026
26 February 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
NUR FUZIATUN MOHD FADZLI (MENYAMAN MELALUI BAPA DAN WAKIL LITIGASI, MOHD FADZLI JAMIL) v. The liability of a hospital and its administrators is not always derivative of the doctor's actions. Even if the treating physician is found not to have breached his/her clinical duty of care, the hospital and its administrators can be held personally liable for systemic or administrative failures that materially contributed to the patient's injury. TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Duty of care - Minor claimant suffering from brain injury and cerebral palsy - Claim against hospital, person in charge of hospital and physician - Duty to ensure operational adequacy - Failure to provide timely access to specialists and neonatal care and to ensure availability of paediatrician - Delay in transferring patient to hospital with neonatal intensive care facilities - Whether administrative and systemic failures constituted breach of duty - Whether negligence against tortfeasors established - Whether hospital management personally liable for operational lapses independent of treating doctor's clinical negligence - Private Healthcare Facilities and Services (Private Hospitals and Other Private Healthcare Facilities) Regulations 2006 TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Duty of care - Proximity - Minor claimant suffering from brain injury and cerebral palsy - Claim against person in charge of hospital - Failure to provide timely access to specialists and neonatal care and to ensure availability of paediatrician - Delay in transferring patient to hospital with neonatal intensive care facilities - Whether there was proximity between claimant and person in charge - Private Healthcare Facilities and Services (Private Hospitals and Other Private Healthcare Facilities) Regulations 2006 APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 2 (Part 5) (i) Keputusan yang dibuat oleh Lembaga Pengampunan, bawah per. 42 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, bersifat mutlak, tidak boleh diadili dan tidak tertakluk pada semakan kehakiman atau cabaran di mahkamah. Mahkamah tidak berbidang kuasa menyemak semula atau mengubah hukuman yang telah diringankan menerusi pengampunan diraja, walaupun terdapat undang-undang baharu seperti Akta Semakan Hukuman Mati dan Pemenjaraan Sepanjang Hayat (Bidang Kuasa Sementara Mahkamah Persekutuan) 2023; (ii) Bagi banduan yang telah menerima pengampunan, remedi untuk mengubah terma hukuman, seperti tarikh permulaan pemenjaraan, bukan terletak di mahkamah, sebaliknya melalui pemfailan petisyen baharu pada Lembaga Pengampunan bawah peraturan 54 dan 113 Peraturan-peraturan Penjara 2000. UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN
UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN: Prerogatif Diraja - Pengampunan - Kuasa dan kemuktamadan pengampunan Lembaga Pengampunan - Tertuduh-tertuduh disabitkan dengan kesalahan mengedar dadah dan dijatuhkan hukuman mati - Tertuduh-tertuduh diberi pengampunan diraja - Lembaga Pengampunan menggantikan hukuman mati dengan hukuman pemenjaraan 30 tahun bermula dari tarikh keputusan Lembaga Pengampunan - Permohonan semakan hukuman terhadap keputusan - Mahkamah memutuskan tempoh pemenjaraan 30 tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap - Sama ada keputusan Lembaga Pengampunan boleh diadili - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa menyemak semula atau mengubah hukuman yang telah diganti oleh Lembaga Pengampunan - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 42 - Akta Semakan Hukuman Mati dan Pemenjaraan Sepanjang Hayat (Bidang Kuasa Sementara Mahkamah Persekutuan) 2023
Wan Ahmad Farid Salleh KHN (Rayuan Jenayah No: 05(RJ)-7-11-2024(W))
(i) A statutory body or its officers are bound by the scope of functions defined by their enabling Act. Where an entity is tasked with carrying out Government policy, it lacks the autonomous power to unilaterally approve financial increases without the express approval of the Executive; (ii) When a party voluntarily enters into a contract at a specific rate, they cannot later claim 'discrimination' if other contractors negotiated better rates. Price negotiations between private or privatised parties are matters of private law, and the courts will not interfere with a bad bargain under the guise of constitutional rights; (iii) A public officer who acts in accordance with the terms of an agreement and follows procedural protocols cannot be said to have committed a tortious act. Administrative decisions made based on contractual limitations do not constitute a 'failure to act' or 'deliberate neglect'. CONTRACT | TORT | LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CONTRACT: Agreement - Concession agreement - Novation - Quantum meruit - Service provider and city council entered into contract for provision of cleaning services for footways of city - Contract novated following privatisation of management of solid waste and public cleansing - Claim for outstanding sums allegedly due for services rendered by service provider to city council - Expectation of entitlement as compared to what other contractors received under concession agreement - Whether there was privity of contract - Whether there was unfair discrimination - Contracts Act 1950, s. 71 TORT: Misfeasance - Misfeasance in public office - Service provider and city council entered into contract for provision of cleaning services for footways of city - Contract novated following privatisation of management of solid waste and public cleansing - Claim for outstanding sums allegedly due for services rendered by service provider to city council - Whether misfeasance in public office established LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City council - Service provider and city council entered into contract for provision of cleaning services for footways of city - Contract novated following privatisation of management of solid waste and public cleansing - Claim for outstanding sums allegedly due for services rendered by service provider to city council - Expectation of entitlement as compared to what other contractors received under concession agreement - Whether there was unfair discrimination - Whether there was tort of misfeasance in public office - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 Collin Lawrence Sequerah JCA
There must be definite finality in respect of all parties' legal position and rights upon the conclusion of a compulsory acquisition. It is equally undesirable to allow the parties to remain in limbo and be allowed free rein to deal with lands under compulsory acquisition in the interim before the acquired land(s) are finally vested upon the State Authority. Neither the previous landowner nor the previous tenant should maintain a modicum of power over the acquired lands especially when the State Authority has already taken physical possession of the acquired lands. The previous landowner should not have been able to claim for 'residual' authority to impose rent and the tenant equally should not be allowed to continue its access or use of the acquired lands for free and at its whims and fancies. LAND LAW | LANDLORD AND TENANT
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compulsory acquisition - Land compulsorily acquired during subsistence of tenancy agreement - Whether rendered tenancy agreement terminated - Whether landlord maintained proprietary interest during interim period of acquisition process - Whether proprietorship only vested upon State Authority as and when land administrator endorses Form K onto register document of title - Whether tenant ought to be allowed access onto rented lots until Form K endorsed - Whether landlord could claim for trespass - Whether access by tenant in due abidance of consent order - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 23 and 66 LANDLORD AND TENANT: Agreement - Termination - Tenancy agreement between parties - Claim for overdue rental - Land compulsorily acquired during subsistence of tenancy agreement - Whether rendered tenancy agreement terminated - Whether parties agreed to termination - Whether landlord entitled to overdue rental - Whether landlord entitled to cause of action for trespass
S Nantha Balan JCA
The court is vested with the jurisdiction to grant leave nunc pro tunc, or retrospective sanction, to a company in liquidation to continue legal proceedings. The exercise of this jurisdiction is, however, circumscribed by the three considerations articulated by the Federal Court in Lai King Lung & Anor v. Merais Sdn Bhd: (i) the application for such leave is made before the disposal of the main suit; (ii) the liquidator has sanctioned the commencement or continuation of the proceedings on behalf of the company; and (iii) the refusal to grant leave would occasion prejudice or result in a miscarriage of justice to the company in liquidation. COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Suit by company - Contributory of wound-up company ('company') commenced suit in name of company - Sanction from official receiver obtained after commencement of suit, via two sanction letters - Suit subsequently struck out by High Court - Company filed appeal, while contributory, separately filed application for leave nunc pro tunc or retrospective sanction ('leave') - Whether leave ought to be allowed - Whether three considerations articulated by Federal Court in Lai King Lung & Anor v. Merais Sdn Bhd satisfied - Whether refusal to grant leave would result in prejudice to company
John Lee Kien How J
An appeal against the decision of the Medical Board, in this case, for invalidity benefits, should be directed to the Appellate Medical Board, pursuant to s. 33 of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969. It is beyond the expertise and jurisdiction of the Social Security Appellate Board to review the findings of the Medical Board. Appeals against the decision of the Appellate Medical Board on points of law to the High Court is possible in specific cases. JURISDICTION | LABOUR LAW
JURISDICTION: Courts - Civil courts - Dismissal of claim for invalidity benefits by Medical Board - Appeal to Social Security Appellate Board ('SOCSO Appellate Board') dismissed - Whether should have appealed to Appellate Medical Board - Whether civil court's jurisdiction to deal with dispute decided by the Medical Board or Appellate Medical Board expressly excluded by s. 84(5) of the ESSA - Whether beyond expertise and jurisdiction of SOCSO Appellate Board to review findings of Medical Board - Whether decision of Medical Board conclusive and binding - Employees' Social Security Act 1969, ss. 34 & 91(2) LABOUR LAW: Social security - Invalidity benefits - Dismissal of claim for invalidity benefits by Medical Board - Appeal to Social Security Appellate Board ('SOCSO Appellate Board') dismissed - Whether satisfied pre-requisites of appeal under Employees' Social Security Act 1969 ('ESSA') - Whether should have appealed to Appellate Medical Board - Whether civil court's jurisdiction to deal with dispute decided by the Medical Board or Appellate Medical Board expressly excluded by s. 84(5) of ESSA - Whether beyond expertise and jurisdiction of SOCSO Appellate Board to review findings of Medical Board - Whether decision of Medical Board conclusive and binding - Employees' Social Security Act 1969, ss. 34 & 91(2)
Azizan Md Arshad J
A banker-customer relationship is contractual in nature, governed by the four corners of the agreement, and does not impose any fiduciary or heightened duty of care beyond its express terms. In this case of alleged fraudulent credit card transactions, when the true and proximate source of the problem stemmed directly and exclusively from the customer's own poor judgment and decision to grant access to third parties, in clear violation of the customer's contractual obligations to maintain the security and exclusivity of her banking credentials, it is not any failure or negligence on the part of the bank. The bank is under no obligation in law to second-guess the transactions. The customer's conscious decision to cede control of her banking credentials absolves the bank of liability. BANKING | CONTRACT | CIVIL PROCEDURE
BANKING: Facilities - Credit card agreement - Dispute on credit card transactions - Allegation of unauthorised and fraudulent transactions made - Investigation conducted by bank - Whether transactions initiated by someone known to plaintiff - Whether bank absolved of liability - Bank commenced legal proceedings to recover outstanding balance - Whether there was breach of contract and negligence on bank's part in failing to prevent disputed transactions - Whether certificate of indebtedness and account statements constituted conclusive evidence of debt - Whether bank complied with Bank Negara Malaysia's regulatory policies and guidelines CONTRACT: Agreement - Credit card agreement - Dispute on credit card transactions - Allegation of unauthorised and fraudulent transactions made - Investigation conducted by bank - Whether transactions initiated by someone known to plaintiff - Whether bank absolved of liability - Bank commenced legal proceedings to recover outstanding balance - Whether there was breach of contract and negligence on bank's part in failing to prevent disputed transactions - Whether certificate of indebtedness and account statements constituted conclusive evidence of debt - Whether bank complied with Bank Negara Malaysia's regulatory policies and guidelines CIVIL PROCEDURE: Preliminary objection - Competency of appeal - Whether appeal, though modest in quantum, involved questions of law warranting appellate scrutiny - Whether issues framed in legal principle or mere evidential disagreement - Whether appeal fell within statutory exception - Whether preliminary objection dismissed - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 28(1) Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC
Mareva injunctions should not unduly interfere with a defendant's ability to conduct ordinary business. While Mareva orders preserve assets pending judgment, they do not provide security for claims or create an 'untouchable pot'. The courts must balance the defendant's reasonable business needs against the plaintiff's legitimate interests in asset preservation. The injunction prevents evasion of justice through improper asset dissipation, not legitimate business operation. Hence, variation, where necessary, ought to be allowed to prevent improper dissipation of assets while allowing business continuation. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Mareva injunction - Application for variation - Tests - Whether variation serves interests of justice - Whether expenses claimed usually incurred or recurring - Whether expenses claimed legitimate, bona fide and reasonable - Whether payments proper in ordinary course of business - Whether variation sought to convert one form of asset into business operations generating ongoing value while meeting trade obligations
Arziah Mohamed Apandi JC
(i) The defence of fair comment succeeds where the impugned words are identifiable as opinion on a matter of public interest, provided they are based on established facts; (ii) The defence of neutral reportage protects the media when they publish defamatory statements made by a third party, provided: (a) the publication is in the public interest; (b) the journalist/publisher remains disinterested and neutral, neither embellishing nor adopting the assertions as their own truth; and (c) the publisher provides the aggrieved party an opportunity to respond, demonstrating good faith and a lack of malice. TORT
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Articles published on news portal regarding politician - Allegations of sexual misconduct and unfitness for public office - Whether words defamatory - 'Lesser sting' - Whether words capable of lowering claimant's reputation in estimation of right-thinking persons - Contextual interpretation TORT: Defamation - Defences - Fair comment - Ingredients - Articles published on news portal - Political controversy surrounding admission into new political party - Whether impugned words statements of fact or comments - Whether based on true and existing facts - Whether matter of public interest - Whether fair-minded person could honestly hold such opinions - Whether defence established TORT: Defamation - Defences - Qualified privilege - Neutral reportage and responsible journalism - Political controversy surrounding admission into new political party - Publication by media of third-party assertions - Whether reportage disinterested and neutral - Whether media adopted or embellished allegations - Whether public interest served - Whether malice established
Roz Mawar Rozain J
ARTICLESCLJ Article(s)
LNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|