| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #16/2026
16 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
KINTA RECOVERY & RECYCLE SDN BHD v. (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: 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 APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 4 (Part 1) In an ex parte application for leave to serve notice of writ out of jurisdiction, applicants must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts in the affidavit, for the court to assess whether a good arguable case exists. An affidavit is considered insufficient - breaching r. 28 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 and O. 41 r. 5(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 - if the averments involve contentious facts outside the deponent's personal knowledge, particularly when the deponent also appears as counsel without disclosing the source of the information. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Writ - Notice of - Ex Parte - Application to set aside leave to serve notice of writ out of jurisdiction - Affidavit contained highly contentious facts - Whether matters within personal knowledge of deponent of affidavit - Whether insufficient affidavit - Whether there was full and frank disclosure - Whether there were serious issues to be tried - Whether there was breach of r. 28 of Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 and O. 41 r. 5(2) of Rules of Court 2012
Hashim Hamzah FCJ
The duty of the Industrial Court, where forced resignation is alleged, is to scrutinise the evidence and determine whether the elements of forced resignation are satisfied. There must be a suggestion, or advice, or option to resign emanating from the employer, such that the employee is placed in a a position where they have no choice but to tender their resignation; specifically, force must have been exerted, giving rise to a threat of dismissal if the employee does not resign. Merely making bare allegations of being forced to resign is insufficient LABOUR LAW
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Resignation - Forced resignation - Elements of - Whether burden to establish forced resignation on employee - Whether there was coercion and force - Whether claimant put in position where there was no other option but to resign or be sacked - Whether there was voluntary resignation LABOUR LAW: Employment - Resignation - Forced resignation - Falsifying superior's signature on invoices - Whether proved to be office practise - Whether a serious misconduct - Whether claimant voluntarily resigned out of fear from misconduct - Whether there was failure to judicially appreciate evidence
Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J
The inclusion of a specific ibra' clause in the statement of claim is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive legal necessity. Consequently, a claim that fails to account for ibra' is fundamentally incomplete and risks misleading the court in its duty to dispense justice. By requiring the express pleading of ibra', by way of amendment to the statement of claim, the court ensures that its judgments are not only legally enforceable but also Shariah compliant, thereby upholding the public's confidence in the Islamic banking sector in particular and Islamic finance in general. BANKING
BANKING: Banks and banking business - Islamic banking facility - Ibra' - Mechanism to prevent financier from claiming unearned profit upon early settlement or default - Absence of clause providing ibra' to customers in sale-based financing - Whether requirement for ibra' mandatory and not merely procedural - Whether failure to disclose applicability of ibra' in early settlement of sale financing facilities amounts to non-compliance
Johan Lee Kien How J
(i) Once stakeholder monies are received and held subject to contractual triggers, the stakeholder is obliged to release/remit the matured portion in accordance with the agreed mechanism. A failure to do so constitutes a breach of stakeholder obligation. Where a stakeholder disputes quantum or entitlement, the stakeholder is expected to raise the issue promptly and to provide a proper accounting basis for retention. A bare assertion of 'lack of particulars' without a time account for reconciliation, particularly after demands are made and maturity timelines have passed, is generally insufficient to justify continued retention of stakeholder monies; (ii) A third party who deals with a legal firm under a specific firm name is entitled to hold the firm - and its partners during the relevant period - responsible for obligations undertaken under that name. Any dispute regarding internal responsibility is a separate matter among the partners, and any internal arrangements cannot be used as a shield against third party claims. LEGAL PROFESSION | PARTNERSHIP | CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors - Stakeholders - Stakeholder arrangement - Whether legal firm appointed as stakeholder under sale and purchase agreement between property developer and purchasers - Whether portion of purchase price to be released to property developer in accordance with agreed triggers and timing mechanism - Failure of solicitors to remit matured sums to property developer as required - Whether stakeholder monies paid into and held in client's account - Reliance upon primary documents, financiers' notifications and bank statements - Whether liability of legal firm established - Whether partners of other branches of legal firm liable - Whether property developer proved sum claimed PARTNERSHIP: Liabilities of partners - Legal firm - Legal firm's letterhead listed names of partners - Whether legal firm one firm with multiple partners - Whether legal firm appointed as stakeholder under sale and purchase agreement between property developer and purchasers - Failure of solicitors to remit matured sums to property developer as required - Whether partners of other branches of legal firm liable - Whether property developer entitled to hold firm and its partners responsible for obligations undertaken under firm name - Partnership Act 1961, s. 7 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Preliminary objections - Evidence - Documents - Admissibility - Admissibility of bank statements - Absence of prior discovery application - Whether rendered relevant documents inadmissible - Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 - Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Preliminary objections - Statements - Additional witness statement - Whether matters already at heart of dispute - Whether introduced new cause of action or separate legal defence - Whether ought to be received as part of evidential record Noradura Hamzah JC
Where a debtor challenges the validity of a debenture, on the grounds that the underlying financing facilities are disguised moneylending arrangements in contravention of the Moneylenders Act 1951, the court may grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction to uplift the appointment of receivers and managers. Such relief is appropriate where: (i) the challenge meets the threshold for mandatory relief; (ii) the receivership poses an existential threat to the company that cannot be adequately compensated by damages; and (iii) the balance of convenience favours the preservation of the company as a going concern over the immediate enforcement rights of the creditor. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interlocutory mandatory and prohibitory injunctions - Application for - Application to uplift appointment of receivers and managers and to restrain appointment of any other person pending final determination of action - Preservation of business as going concern - Whether there were exceptional circumstances - Whether challenge to validity of debenture met threshold - Whether damages adequate remedy - Whether balance of convenience favoured granting of injunction sought
Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC
Where a contract is rendered void due to the absence of a moneylending license, a legitimate commercial entity - as distinguished from a predatory loan shark - remains entitled to the restitution of the principal sum advanced under s. 66 of the Contracts Act 1950. This prevents the borrower from being unjustly enriched. CIVIL PROCEDURE | MONEYLENDERS | CONTRACT
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Facilities granted to borrower by commercial entity - Borrower terminated facilities and initiated suit against commercial entity and its directors - Causes of action of illegality of facilities, tortious conspiracy and unlawful interference - Directors sought to strike out borrower's action - Whether there were arguable causes of action - Whether there were serious and triable issues - Whether matter for trial MONEYLENDERS: Unlicensed moneylender - Facilities - Facilities granted to borrower by commercial entity - Features of facilities - Whether facilities granted amounted to moneylending - Whether commercial entity unlicensed moneylender - Whether licence required - Whether facilities agreements enforceable - Moneylenders Act 1951, ss. 5 & 15 CONTRACT: Restitution - Unlicensed moneylending - Facilities granted to borrower by commercial entity - Whether commercial entity licensed moneylender - Borrower terminated facilities and initiated suit against commercial entity and its directors - Whether commercial entity entitled to principal sum - Contracts Act 1950, s. 66 Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC
Where the presence of a certain word gives rise to an absurd consequence or result, it is incumbent on the court to construe it so that the meaning and intent of the legislature can be carried out. The word 'and' in para. (a) of s. 52(1) of the Fisheries Act 1985 ('FA') ought to be construed as 'or', as only by doing so can para. (b) to s. 52(1) of the FA be seen as a distinct offence from those spelt out in para. (a). If the word 'and' were to be construed in its original meaning as 'together with', the reading of paras. (a) and (b) conjunctively would lead to an absurd result. A literal interpretation of the word 'and' would lead to a conflicting outcome, undermining the legislative intent in amending s. 52(1) of the FA to address serious fisheries offences. Consequently, there is no error in law nor in fact when considering s. 52(1) of the FA in ordering the forfeiture of a vessel and equipment. CRIMINAL LAW | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | FISHERIES | WORDS & PHRASES
CRIMINAL LAW: Offences - Fisheries activity - Offence under s. 8(b) of Fisheries Act 1985 ('FA') - Conviction and sentence - Order of forfeiture of vessel and equipment - Appeal against - Whether forfeiture and disposal under s. 52 of FA only applies to offences under ss. 8(a), 11(3), 11(3A), 15(1) or 26 - Interpretation of word 'and' in para. (1) to s. 52 of FA - Whether literal interpretation would lead to absurd and conflicting outcome - Whether ought to be construed as 'or' - Whether offences in para. (a) distinct offences as between themselves and with offence in para. (b) - Whether paragraphs ought to be read disjunctively - Whether Sessions Court erred when considering s. 52(1) of FA in ordering forfeiture of vessel and equipment - Whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive and unlawful CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Forfeiture - Order of forfeiture - Appeal against - Order of forfeiture of vessel and equipment in fisheries offences - Offence under s. 8(b) of Fisheries Act 1985 ('FA') - Whether forfeiture and disposal under s. 52 of FA only applies to offences under ss. 8(a), 11(3), 11(3A), 15(1) or 26 - Interpretation of word 'and' in para. (1) to s. 52 of FA - Whether literal interpretation would lead to absurd and conflicting outcome - Whether ought to be construed as 'or' - Whether offences in para. (a) distinct offences as between themselves and with offence in para. (b) - Whether paragraphs ought to be read disjunctively - Whether Sessions Court erred when considering s. 52(1) of FA in ordering forfeiture of vessel and equipment FISHERIES: Offences - Fisheries activity - Offence under s. 8(b) of Fisheries Act 1985 ('FA' ) - Conviction and sentence - Order of forfeiture of vessel and fishing equipment - Appeal against - Whether forfeiture and disposal under s. 52 of FA only applies to offences under ss. 8(a), 11(3), 11(3A), 15(1) or 26 - Interpretation of word 'and' in para. (1) to s. 52 of FA - Whether literal interpretation would lead to absurd and conflicting outcome - Whether ought to be construed as 'or' - Whether offences in para. (a) distinct offences as between themselves and with offence in para (b) - Whether paragraphs ought to be read disjunctively - Whether Sessions Court erred when considering s. 52(1) of FA in ordering forfeiture of vessel and equipment - Whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive and unlawful WORDS & PHRASES: 'and' - Fisheries Act 1985, s. 52(1) - Interpretation of - Whether literal interpretation would lead to absurd and conflicting outcome - Whether ought to be construed as 'or' - Whether offences in para. (a) distinct offences as between themselves and with offence in para. (b) - Whether paragraphs ought to be read disjunctively Dean Wayne Daly J
(i) Section 323(1)(b) of the National Land Code permits a private caveat to be lodged by any person or body claiming to be beneficially entitled under a trust affecting land or any interest therein. Where a registered proprietor enters into an arrangement to hold land subject to an equitable restraint in favour of another party, such undertakings create equitable obligations binding the registered proprietor; (ii) A caveat is a statutory injunction that restrains a proprietor from dealing with the land and given its far-reaching effects, claims by a caveator must be enforced promptly. If a director and shareholder of a company that lodges a caveat on the land is able to show a prima facie caveatable interest arising from its beneficial entitlement under a constructive trust, the balance of convenience lies with maintaining the caveat as its removal would strip the company of equitable security. A caveat serves the legitimate purpose of preserving the subject matter of the dispute until final adjudication. LAND LAW | CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAND LAW: Caveat - Private caveat - Removal of - Application for - Director and shareholder of company ('defendant') lodged private caveat to preserve interest in land arising from agreement entered into with registered proprietor - Whether registered proprietor held land subject to equitable restraint in favour of company - Whether registered proprietor undertook not to dispose of land without company's consent - Whether land subject to equitable obligation in favour of company giving rise to beneficial interest under constructive trust - Whether defendant had enforceable interest in preventing dealings with land - Whether defendant established caveatable interest within ambit of s. 323(1)(b) of National Land Code LAND LAW: Caveat - Private caveat - Removal of - Application for - Director and shareholder of company ('defendant') lodged private caveat to preserve interest in land arising from agreement entered into with registered proprietor - Whether continued existence of caveat prejudicial to registered proprietor - Whether land subject to equitable obligation in favour of company giving rise to beneficial interest under constructive trust - Whether defendant showed prima facie caveatable interest - Whether balance of convenience lay in maintaining caveat CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Issues - Whether serious questions arose - Whether there were substantial matters requiring proper adjudication
Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J
Goods are deemed 'imported' upon entering Malaysian territorial waters. To be classified as 'transit' or 'transhipment' under s. 2 of the Customs Act 1967 ('Act'), there must be strict adherence to the regulatory framework in ss. 35A to 35N of the Act. Without satisfying the specific legal definitions of transit, these goods are subject to immediate customs jurisdiction and enforcement. CUSTOMS AND EXCISE | WORDS AND PHRASES
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Offence - Prohibited goods - Importing and dealing with prohibited goods - Liquor and cigarettes found on vessel berthed at non-custom port - Whether goods in 'transit' or 'transhipment' - Whether statutory definitions of 'transit' and 'transhipment' satisfied - Whether there was failure to produce manifest and passenger list within prescribed time - Customs Act 1967, ss. 2, 23, 35A to 35N, 52(1), 102(1)(a), 135(1)(a) & (e) WORDS AND PHRASES: 'transit' and 'transhipment' - Meaning of - Customs Act 1967, s. 2 - Necessity of strict statutory compliance for goods to be classified as in transit
Wong Siong Tung J
The moratorium under s. 410(c) of the Companies Act 2016 ('CA') applies to all forms of judicial process, whether interlocutory, ancillary or substantive in nature. The legislative intent of s. 410(c) of the CA is to preserve the status and assets of the company under judicial management from any legal process, regardless of whether it arises from litigation or arbitration. As this moratorium is mandatory and operates immediately upon the filing of the judicial management application, no proceedings may be commenced or continued without the leave of the court. CIVIL PROCEDURE | CONTRACT
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Ex parte injunction - Company under judicial management proceeding - Effect of - Whether moratorium under s. 410(c) of Companies Act 2016 mandatory - Whether operates immediately upon filing of judicial management application - Whether proceeding may only be commenced with judicial management court - Whether failure to obtain leave constitutes jurisdictional defect - Whether injunction application incompetent and liable to be struck out CONTRACT: Business and schemes - Judicial management order - Application for injunction pending judicial management proceeding - Whether moratorium under s. 410(c) of Companies Act 2016 mandatory - Whether operates immediately upon filing of judicial management application - Whether proceeding may only be commenced with judicial management court - Whether failure to obtain leave constitutes jurisdictional defect - Whether injunction application incompetent and liable to be struck out
Anita Harun JC
(i) A chairman's decision to disallow a majority shareholder from voting during an ordinary general meeting is valid if made in accordance with the company's constitution and the Companies Act 2016. A bona fide termination of a meeting by the chairman may only be challenged upon proof of neglect; mere allegations of impropriety are insufficient. Absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or ulterior motives, such a termination constitutes a lawful exercise of authority. Furthermore, any party seeking a declaration to nullify the termination must join all shareholders as parties to the action, as the termination invariably affects their collective rights. Failure to do so renders any prayer for such a declaration fatally defective; (ii) Pre-approved and pre-signed Proposed Written Resolutions (PWR) contravene the Companies Act 2016, as the Act contains no provision authorising such arrangements. Specifically, circulating an unsigned PWR violates s. 302(5)(c) of the Act, which expressly requires that a written resolution be signed or authenticated by the member making the request. COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Appointment - Validity of - Validity of decision of company's chairman to disallow majority shareholders from voting on election of majority faction directors in company's ordinary general meeting ('OGM') - Whether termination of OGM valid - Statutory rights of members/shareholders - Section 202(2) read together with s. 202(3) of Companies Act 2016 ('Act') - Whether there were contraventions and inconsistencies between s. 202(2) of Act and articles of company's constitution - Whether pre-approved and pre-signed proposed written resolution ('PWR') in contravention of Act - Whether there was material non-compliance of provisions in ss. 302 to 306 of Act - Whether PWR null and void - Whether Board's decisions made in good faith in best interest of company - Whether request for order under s. 314(2)(b) of Act sustainable
Wendy Ooi Su Ghee J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|