| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #27/2026
02 July 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
NG CHOON LUK (DECEASED) v. CIMB BANK BHD [2026] 6 CLJ 479 While a banking customer's voluntary disclosure of security credentials to scammers breaches cardholder obligations and initiates a loss, such deception does not entirely sever the chain of causation if the fraud unfolds incrementally over several days rather than instantaneously. A financial institution's prolonged failure to act upon an objectively detectable transaction pattern constitutes an independent and continuing omission. Consequently, the institution is liable in negligence for breach of contract for failing to deploy its automated fraud detection systems and exercise its contractual powers to halt an ongoing, multi-day fraud event. Under statutory principles of apportionment, although both parties are causative of the damage, a sophisticated financial institution bears a greater institutional responsibility to safeguard vulnerable clients. BANKING: Banker and customer - Duty of care - Unauthorised ATM withdrawals and MEPS fund transfers - Deceased 85-year-old preferred customer with 30 years' standing - Scammers obtaining debit card and PIN via scam call - Failure by bank to take protective steps, send notifications, or restrict account - Whether financial institution possessing advanced fraud detection systems and contractual powers to freeze account - Whether bank breached duty of care and contractual obligations to exercise fraud detection capabilities BANKING: Banker and customer - Quincecare duty - Nature and application - Scammers utilising customer's debit card and PIN directly at ATMs and MEPS transfers without customer's contemporaneous instructions - Bank's terms and conditions empowering intervention upon suspicion of fraudulent or abnormal transactions - Whether Quincecare duty applied where customer did not issue payment orders TORT: Negligence - Contributory negligence - Apportionment of liability - Customer voluntarily disclosing PIN and surrendering debit card to scammers - Fraud occurred continuously over 14 consecutive days - Whether bank failed to detect or intervene despite obvious abnormal transaction pattern - Whether customer's conduct broke chain of causation entirely - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 12 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Subsidiary legislation - Bank Negara Malaysia ('BNM') guidelines issued under Financial Services Act 2013 - Guidelines not specifically pleaded in statement of claim - Whether BNM guidelines could be considered by court - Whether guidelines constituted facts requiring pleading - Whether there was surprise or prejudice to opposing party - Whether bank's officers fully trained on guidelines and compliance framework - Whether claim depended solely on guidelines - Whether there was independent legal bases via Quincecare duty and contractual terms JUDICIAL QUOTES“The power conferred by O. 14A is a salutary summary jurisdiction aimed at the efficient disposal of litigation where a determinative question of law can be identified and resolved on undisputed facts. As the Federal Court explained in Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd & Other Appeals [2014] 7 CLJ 597, the jurisdiction is exercisable where: (i) the question is a pure question of law; (ii) the question can be resolved on facts that are undisputed or agreed; (iii) the determination would finally dispose of the whole cause or matter or a claim or issue therein; and (iv) the determination is suitable without a full trial.” “As to what constitutes a “pure question of law”, the courts have consistently held that the question need not be simple or uncomplicated. A question of statutory construction – however contested the parties' submissions – remains a question of law if its resolution depends solely upon the meaning, scope and effect of the statutory provision and does not turn upon the resolution of disputed primary facts.” “I am of the considered view that the threshold requirement of undisputed facts does not demand that every conceivable factual question in the litigation be free from controversy. It requires only that the relevant facts necessary for the resolution of the stated legal question be undisputed. Where the primary facts material to the legal question are agreed or unanswerable, the O. 14A jurisdiction is available notwithstanding the existence of other factual disputes that would, if the legal question is answered in the applicant's favour, become academic.” - Per Rajes Raghavji JC in Pesako Technology Sdn Bhd v. Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2026] 6 CLJ 308 LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 6 (Part 2) 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; this prevents the impermissible bifurcation of legal proceedings and upholds 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 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | DAMAGES
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 Lim Chong Fong JCA
The inclusion of cls. (8) and (9) into art. 150 of the Federal Constitution ('FC') by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1981, which excludes judicial review of emergency proclamations and facilitates the swift promulgation of Ordinances, does not violate the basic structure of the FC. These clauses are valid and constitutional because: (i) they protect sensitive intelligence from public and judicial disclosure in the interest of national security; (ii) they ensure the Government can take immediate, unchecked legislative action via Ordinances to avert a national crisis, avoiding the limitations previously imposed by jurisprudence; and (iii) rather than breaching the basic structure, judicial intervention in these Executive functions would itself constitute a transgression of the doctrine of separation of powers. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Emergency - Proclamation of emergency - Validity of Constitution (Amendment) Act 1981 - Insertion of cls. (8) and (9) into art. 150 of Federal Constitution - Rationale behind amendment - Whether in violation of basic structure of Federal Constitution - Whether court barred from reviewing proclamation of emergency and related ordinances - Whether presumption of constitutionality displaced CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Separation of powers - Judiciary and Executive - Judicial review of emergency powers - Whether emergency powers under art. 150 of Federal Constitution non-justiciable - Whether courts equipped to handle matters involving national security and sensitive information - Whether there is overlap in separation of powers - Whether judicial intervention would transgress doctrine of separation of powers
Supang Lian JCA
(i) To qualify for citizenship by operation of law under art. 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution ('FC'), a claimant must prove both that he was born in Malaysia (jus soli) and that he was not born a citizen of any other country (jus sanguinis). Where the biological parents are completely unknown, the constitutional requirement of jus sanguinis is not satisfied; (ii) The Adoption Act 1952, being a subsidiary legislation, is not a legally competent instrument to confer or alter constitutional citizenship status under art. 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the FC. A lawful adoption order or the subsequent issuance of a revised birth certificate naming a Malaysian citizen parent does not indirectly confer citizenship on an adopted child, nor can ordinary statutes be interpreted to supplement or fill perceived gaps within the FC. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Operation of law - Application for declaration - Birth in Malaysia to unknown biological parents - Whether child fulfilled dual criteria of jus soli and jus sanguinis - Federal Constitution, art. 14(1)(b), Second Schedule, Part II, ss. 1(a), 1(e) & 2(3) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Adopted child - Effect of adoption order - Child adopted by Malaysian citizen under Adoption Act 1952 ('AA') - Re-issuance of birth certificate naming citizen as father - Relationship between subsidiary legislation and Federal Constitution - Whether AA legally competent instrument to confer or alter constitutional citizenship - Whether adoption could fill perceived gaps in Federal Constitution - Federal Constitution, art. 14(1)(b), Second Schedule, Part II, s. 1(a)
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
Under s. 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953, the six-year limitation period for a breach of contract is triggered as soon as all facts necessary to entitle a party to sue have come into existence, which typically occurs on the date of the breach. While parties may contractually modify this rule, an 'upon demand' clause is generally construed as a procedural mechanism for enforcement rather than a condition precedent to the accrual of liability itself, especially where the agreement's structure deems a breach complete upon the act of default. A claim initiated more than six years after such a breach is statute-barred, as allowing a creditor to unilaterally postpone the limitation period by delaying a demand would undermine the legal policy of finality. Such an inordinate and unexplained delay may independently justify the refusal of relief under the doctrine of laches, particularly where the claimant fails to adduce the necessary documentary evidence to demonstrate that the cause of action accrued at a later date. CONTRACT | LIMITATION | CIVIL PROCEDURE
CONTRACT: Breach - Cadetship agreement - Failure to report for duty - Reimbursement of training costs - Interpretation of 'upon demand' clause - Whether liability to reimburse arose immediately upon breach or only upon issuance of formal demand - Whether demand postponed accrual of cause of action - Intention of parties - Whether liability contingent upon demand - Whether claim ought to be struck out as being statute-barred - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19 (1)(b) & (d) LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual of - Breach of contract - Cadetship agreement - Cadet failed to report for duty - Claim for reimbursement of training costs - Whether cause of action accrued on date of breach or date of formal demand - Contractual provision for reimbursement of training costs 'upon demand' - Whether 'upon demand' constituted a condition precedent to liability or merely regulated enforcement - Whether limitation period began to run from date of breach or date of demand - Effect of inordinate and unexplained delay - Whether claim statute-barred - Whether doctrine of laches applicable - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1)(a) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Writ of summons and statement of claim - Claim filed more than six years after alleged breach of agreement - Whether claim obviously unsustainable - Whether claim scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court process - Whether limitation valid ground for striking out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b) & (d) Moh Kok Wai JC
Where the cumulative effect of significant procedural and evidentiary failures creates an unbridgeable gap in a prosecution's case, courts ought to set aside the conviction for, in this case, rape. Such a decision is warranted when a material variance between the charge date and the evidence adduced prejudices the accused's right to a fair trial, particularly when combined with a complainant's testimony that is riddled with contradictions and unsupported by forensic or DNA evidence. Furthermore, the reliability of the verdict is fundamentally compromised if the court improperly treats the testimony of a biased witness as corroborative, fails to call essential witnesses to resolve critical ambiguities, or overlooks credible evidence of an extortionate motive behind the complaint. Ultimately, when the core narrative is inconsistent and lacks objective support, the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsafe. CRIMINAL LAW | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 376(1) - Rape - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Complainant aged 12 years and five months - Alleged sexual intercourse in karaoke room - Whether there was material discrepancy between date stated in charge and evidence adduced - Whether medical evidence supported prosecution's version of events - Whether there was corroborative evidence - Failure to call material witnesses - Whether created gap in prosecution's case - Allegation of extortion by complainant's mother - Whether evidence sufficient, consistent and credible to sustain conviction - Whether conviction safe CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Discrepancies - Whether there was material contradiction between date stated in charge and evidence adduced - Whether discrepancy fatal to conviction - Whether appellant prejudiced in his defence EVIDENCE: Witness - Credibility - Whether there were contradictions in complainant's account - Evidence of complainant engaging in voluntary intimate acts with other males shortly after alleged incident - Whether evidence sufficiently consistent and credible to sustain conviction - Whether complainant a witness of truth - Whether cumulative effect of matters rendered conviction unsafe EVIDENCE: Corroboration - Rape - Medical evidence and testimony of third party - Whether medical findings supported prosecution's version - Whether testimony of witness present at material time could properly be treated as corroborative - Failure to call material witnesses - Whether created unbridgeable gap in prosecution's case - Adverse inference - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) EVIDENCE: Statement - Extortion - Offence of rape - Allegation that complainant's mother demanded RM200,000 from accused person's mother to withdraw police report - Whether trial judge erred in dismissing evidence of alleged extortion - Impact on motive and credibility of prosecution's case - Whether cumulative effect of matters rendered conviction unsafe Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC
An application for the rectification and mandatory execution of security documents is unsustainable where the applicant fails to strictly plead and prove a concluded contractual nexus, as the court's equitable jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act 1950 and inherent powers under O. 92 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 cannot be invoked to impose new obligations on non-signatories or remedy a party's own negligence. Because rectification presupposes a prior, enforceable legal obligation, it cannot be used to substantively create contracts or validate unexecuted instruments in the absence of unequivocal evidence of consent. Accordingly, a fatal disconnect between the affidavit evidence and the subsequent legal submissions and reliefs sought constitutes a fundamental defect that precludes the court from compelling performance under a non-existent or imperfect agreement. CONTRACT | LAND LAW | CIVIL PROCEDURE
CONTRACT: Formation - Privity of contract - Housing loan facility - Security documents - Deed of assignment - Power of attorney - Letter of offer and loan agreement executed only by first defendant - Second defendant co-purchaser of property but not party to loan documents - Whether binding contract existed between plaintiff and second defendant by conduct - Whether second defendant under legally enforceable obligation to execute security documents CONTRACT: Formation - Privity of contract - Housing loan facility - Security documents - Deed of assignment - Power of attorney - Letter of offer and loan agreement executed only by first defendant - Second defendant co-purchaser of property but not party to loan documents - Whether binding contract existed between plaintiff and second defendant by conduct - Whether second defendant under legally enforceable obligation to execute security documents LAND LAW: Housing loan - Security documents - Deed of assignment - Power of attorney - Property purchased by two defendants but loan facility and security documents executed by only one - Default in repayment - Rights of lender against non-signatory beneficial owner CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Affidavit - Application for rectification and mandatory execution of security documents - Requirement to plead and prove factual and legal foundation - Whether plaintiff pleaded material facts establishing concluded and enforceable contract - Whether assertions in submissions could remedy deficiencies in affidavit evidence CIVIL PROCEDURE: Rectification - Nature of relief - Application to compel non-signatory to execute deed of assignment and power of attorney - Distinction between rectification of existing instruments and imposition of new contractual obligations - Necessity of prior and enforceable legal obligation - Whether court may authorise execution on behalf of party in absence of established legal basis Samry Masri JC
(i) To claim the entirety of a revenue decline, the plaintiff must establish a direct causal link between the defendant's specific conduct and the claimed loss; (ii) The quantification of damages for loss of goodwill and reputation must remain proportionate to the scale of the infringing activity. The court will assess the potential reach of the harm realistically, ensuring the award reflects the loss of competitive edge and market exclusivity without causing the financial ruin of a small-scale infringer; (iii) General damages may be awarded to compensate for residual harm not fully captured by loss of profit or goodwill. To prevent double recovery, where the core financial and reputational harms have already been compensated under specific heads, any subsequent award for general damages must be tightly controlled and modest. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademark - Infringement - Passing off - Counterfeit goods - Seizure of counterfeit medicated oil at retail premises - Assessment of damages - Claim for damages for loss of business profit and loss of goodwill and reputation, countermeasure costs and general damages - Principles of assessment and factors considered in arriving at amounts - Appropriate amount of damages to be awarded
Edwin Paramjothy Michael Muniandy JC
The collective statutory architecture of the judicial management regime, under the Companies Act 2016 ('CA'), is premised upon a unified, class-based process. Under s. 421(3) of the CA, a scheme of proposal approved by the requisite supermajority of creditors (75% in value under s. 421(2)) binds all creditors of the company. Creditors cannot cherry-pick their relationship with the corporate rescue process. A creditor who is fully notified of the proceedings but fails, elects, or deliberately abstains from filing a proof of debt or participating in the creditors' meeting remains bound by the approved scheme. The binding statutory mechanism operates at the class level rather than the individual level. It applies to any debt or liability that 'could have been claimed' in the judicial management. A creditor cannot escape the collective discipline or the binding effect of the scheme by the simple expedient of unilateral passivity or failing to file a proof of debt. COMPANY LAW | CIVIL PROCEDURE
COMPANY LAW: Judicial management - Scheme of proposal - Binding effect of approved scheme - Creditor notified of judicial management proceedings but failed or elected not to file proof of debt or participate in proceedings - Scheme approved by supermajority of creditors - Whether creditor bound by approved scheme under s. 421(3) of Companies Act 2016 - Whether creditor barred from pursuing separate civil action for debt recovery - Whether applied to any debt or liability that 'could have been claimed' in judicial management - Whether natural justice violated where creditor had full notice and opportunity to participate but chose not to do so CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary disposal - Application for - Determination of question of law to finally dispose of action - Pending civil suit for debt recovery against company under judicial management - Creditor failing to file proof of debt despite notification - Whether question of law suitable for summary determination - Whether material facts undisputed - Whether court had inherent jurisdiction to prevent unconscionable outcome - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A r. 1(1)
Rajes Raghavji JC
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|